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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Low-hanging fruit first
