U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:21 AM
 
10,366 posts, read 8,361,533 times
Reputation: 19114

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
maybe they want biological children
A uterine transplant does not result in biological children. Eggs come from the ovaries, not the uterus. The uterus is the "nest" - not the egg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:22 AM
 
2,223 posts, read 920,539 times
Reputation: 1723
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
The UK is working on a new method to transplant a uterus into biological males. The goal is to help transgendered people have babies. It could also allow gay and single men to have babies. The procedure might be funded by the UK national health system. A great step forward.

Doctors back transgender women having babies on the NHS | Daily Mail Online
Please say that you are being sarcastic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:39 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,848 posts, read 1,644,923 times
Reputation: 3606
Default Low-hanging fruit first

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
The UK is working on a new method to transplant a uterus into biological males. The goal is to help transgendered people have babies. It could also allow gay and single men to have babies. The procedure might be funded by the UK national health system. A great step forward.

Doctors back transgender women having babies on the NHS | Daily Mail Online
Is the Daily Mail always long on breathless delivery & short on info? In fact, they don't say what the new method to transplant a uterus is. Yah, uterine transplants can be done, have been done. But as noted, they're temporary, & the recipient has to stay on antirejection drugs, which have their own problems. I don't see the point - the antibiotic age is winding down (unless we get going immediately on developing new antibiotics, or different approaches to the entire set of problems), & soon we (the West, anyway) won't be doing massively invasive elective surgery for psychological reasons.

Yah, knowledge is good. The more we can learn about fetal development & the changes that the woman undergoes during the process, the better - with an eye to preventing medical problems or @ least learning how to ameliorate them for the best outcomes possible for fetus & woman. If we ever get to the point that we can provide Western-style best medical practices to the World, then we can look @ making transgender people fully functional in their target gender.

In the here & now, people die for lack of clean water, poor to nonexistent sewage treatment, severe environmental damage, heavy metal poisoning, starvation, the lack of the most basic medical treatment or even first aid, & on & on. Mostly easily preventable causes, & so we should look @ preventing these needless deaths
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
11,660 posts, read 8,256,923 times
Reputation: 5760
Here's a question: Why wouldn't the motive for this be so that actual women with wombs that are incapable of bearing children are able to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:43 AM
Status: "It is the nature of grotesque things you canít look away" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
17,988 posts, read 8,117,349 times
Reputation: 10434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Here's a question: Why wouldn't the motive for this be so that actual women with wombs that are incapable of bearing children are able to?
Of course the research is applicable. That's why this is worth doing, despite how ridiculous some people find it.

As I said above, I personally find the insistence that your child must have your genes pretty silly, but there's no denying the value of the research that has arisen from this insistence.

The Daily Mail is known for its sensationalist approach to news. Of course they'd lead with the 'now men can get pregnant' headline, even though probably more women would actually make use of this research.

Last edited by jacqueg; 07-02-2017 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 08:49 AM
 
16,665 posts, read 8,513,515 times
Reputation: 9531
I would be up in arms if the us taxpayer had to cover such debauchery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 09:05 AM
Status: "It is the nature of grotesque things you canít look away" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
17,988 posts, read 8,117,349 times
Reputation: 10434
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltine View Post
I would be up in arms if the us taxpayer had to cover such debauchery.
Do you favor women getting uterus transplants?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 09:15 AM
 
10,366 posts, read 8,361,533 times
Reputation: 19114
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Of course the research is applicable. That's why this is worth doing, despite how ridiculous some people find it.

As I said above, I personally find the insistence that your child must have your genes pretty silly, but there's no denying the value of the research that has arisen from this insistence.

The Daily Mail is known for its sensationalist approach to news. Of course they'd lead with the 'now men can get pregnant' headline, even though probably more women would actually make use of this research.
Anyone insisting on having children who share their genes would need working ovaries of their own in addition to a uterine transplant. Transplanted ovaries (plus a working uterus, whether natural or transplanted) might result in bearing a child, but that child would not have the bearer's DNA.

Once again, eggs come from the ovaries, not the uterus. Transplanting a uterus minus ovaries will not result in bearing a child with the carrier's genes, unless that carrier has at least one intact, working ovary and fallopian tube hooked up and leading to the uterus. Otherwise, I suppose in-vitro fertilization could be used to move the fertilized egg into the transplanted uterus.

Another argument for adoption rather than this excessively expensive and risky "treatment".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 09:19 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
29,699 posts, read 16,469,939 times
Reputation: 22313
Quote:
Originally Posted by warhorse78 View Post
Instead of going through all this trouble playing mad scientist, why don't they just talk to women who are considering abortion about paying her medical expenses in exchange for adopting her baby when she has it? Or, adopt a child that is in an orphanage?
I agree. Of course there are states that want to prevent same sex couples from adopting any child; including an unwanted child in an orphanage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Sounds like something out of a 19th horror novel.
Yeah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 09:22 AM
Status: "It is the nature of grotesque things you canít look away" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
17,988 posts, read 8,117,349 times
Reputation: 10434
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
Anyone insisting on having children who share their genes would need working ovaries of their own in addition to a uterine transplant. Transplanted ovaries (plus a working uterus, whether natural or transplanted) might result in bearing a child, but that child would not have the bearer's DNA.

Once again, eggs come from the ovaries, not the uterus. Transplanting a uterus minus ovaries will not result in bearing a child with the carrier's genes, unless that carrier has at least one intact, working ovary and fallopian tube hooked up and leading to the uterus. Otherwise, I suppose in-vitro fertilization could be used to move the fertilized egg into the transplanted uterus.

Another argument for adoption rather than this excessively expensive and risky "treatment".
Oh, they're working on that too. Transplanting your DNA into someone else's egg is in its early stages. Three Way IVF

If this works, I see no theoretical reason why, with a little tweaking, both partners of a same-sex couple couldn't be mutual parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top