Infertile Daughter To Receive Uterus From Mother

kkleiner writes "Led by Dr. Mats Brännström, a team of surgeons at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden are giving Sara Ottosson, now 25 years old, hope that she may one day fulfill her dream of giving birth to a baby. The uterus will come from a very special donor: Eva Ottosson, Sara's mother. Sara's operation will mark only the second time transplantation of a uterus has been attempted in humans, and the first time between a mother and daughter."

Comments

Not really so rare

[sackvillian]

Many children inherit their childhood home.

interesting angle

[v1]

If mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway, and that's gotta help with the possibility of not needing to take anti-rejection meds too. Does make one wonder just how well a uterus possibly in its 50's will hold up to pregnancy though? Just because you transplant it into a younger person doesn't make the organ suddenly young again.

Re:interesting angle

[girlintraining]

with the possibility of not needing to take anti-rejection meds

The body eventually rejects anything that is foreign. That's the whole purpose of the immune system, and it has unique protein keys for each person. All a donation from mom means is that the reaction will be slower, and there will be less of a need to suppress the immune system.

Re:interesting angle

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless she is planning on doing some reasonably serious spawning, 'eventually' won't be a deal-killing problem. Unlike a donor heart or something, it just has to last long enough to produce the desired number of children.

In that vein, I'd be curious to know if there are any special complexities, compared to other organs, with immune reactions in-utero. Embryos, after all, are aggressively expanding foreign organisms; but any species whose immune system suppressed them wouldn't be in the running for long(not only that; but egg-donor produced embryos are entirely unrelated to the person carrying them and even those don't seem to get exterminated by the maternal immune system)...

Re:interesting angle

[Rei]

The studies show surprisingly little impact to the embryo from immunosuppressant drugs. And there's already a large body of data on it; a successful pregnancy is generally considered one of the best signs that a person has adapted to a (non-uterine) transplant.

Re:interesting angle

[girlintraining]

Every mother carries cells within her body for life of the kids she has conceived (not necessarily given birth to). The female immune system has several features designed to inhibit normal immunological responses during pregnancy...

Re:interesting angle

[ModernGeek]

I'd also worry about the higher potential risk for cancer in an organ that would normally exist for a total of say 75 years, that may now end up existing for about 120.

Re:interesting angle

[Rei]

The uterus will be removed after (or even during) birth so that the mother can get off immunosuppressants.

Re:interesting angle

[kanweg]

"Does make one wonder just how well a uterus possibly in its 50's will hold up to pregnancy though? Just because you transplant it into a younger person doesn't make the organ suddenly young again."

There are several old women, even in their sixties who have conceived a child. Some Italian doctor does this type of treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

Bert

Re:interesting angle

[ColdWetDog]

Uterine contractions supposedly form part of the female orgasm...

You're thinking of oxytocin, the hormone that stimulates uterine contractions, not so much the uterine muscle itself. Women who have had their uterus removed can have orgasms.

Re:interesting angle

[Ihmhi]

Hey now, don't be such a downer. Too many people don't know how to share.

"It's uter-us, Marge, not uter-u!"

Re:interesting angle

[TheLink]

The stimulation to cause orgasm may come from other parts of the body (clitoris, g-spot, etc[1]), but so far I haven't heard the uterus as one of the erogenous zones.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127280&page=1
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-orside11feb11,0,79450.story

Re:interesting angle

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you transplant it into a younger person doesn't make the organ suddenly young again.

Yes, with this older uterus, doctors are expecting the young woman to give birth to a teenage son or daughter. If this works, it'll help help all of humanity by saving parents 10 years per kid by obviating the need to take care of infants.

Re:interesting angle

[coolgeek]

It's not that cut and dry. Placental integrity may be affected by the age of the uterus, which could lead to problems during gestation. Then again, hormones in the daughter's body may change the condition of the tissue the uterus is composed of.

Re:interesting angle

[jamesh]

The stimulation to cause orgasm may come from other parts of the body (clitoris, g-spot, etc), but so far I haven't heard the uterus as one of the erogenous zones.

Google or wikipedia for Uterine Orgasm if you dare. I'm not sure if it ranks alongside G-Spots and female ejaculations as a subject of dispute, but it's definitely not unheard of. Even without that, anecdotal evidence supports a change in orgasm after a hysterectomy.

I don't know anything about the donor so i'm not saying it's a big deal or not, but to dismiss it outright by saying that "mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway" is a bit preemptive. There was a doctor who was taken to court for removing some poor lady's clitoris as part of a skin cancer removal procedure. He claimed it was necessary but is also reported to have told a nurse that "Her husband's dead so it doesn't matter anyway".

Re:interesting angle

[Shoe Puppet]

I wonder if they will put it back into her mother then, just in case she wants to get another child.

Re:interesting angle

[Tolkien]

Wow what an insensitive douche-bag that doctor is. I mean it's not like she couldn't have used it to give herself orgasms or anything.

Re:interesting angle

[slackbheep]

Being insensitive didn't give this woman cancer, people need to accept that those in the medical profession frequently use gallows humor to avoid stringing themselves up in a broom closet. That said reading TFA makes this situation sound like something out of a horror movie:
"She said the doctor told her of his intention when she was about to pass out from anaesthesia on the operating table. "He leaned over me and, for my ears only, he said: 'I'm going to take your clitoris too'," she said. "

Re:interesting angle

[Roduku]

Are you sure? I know the article talks about a similar surgery done in Saudi Arabia where the uterus was meant to be temporary. In this case, though, the woman says she wants the surgery to be successful so she can have children -- plural.

Re:interesting angle

[tibit]

Mom is passing one immunoglobulin (IgG) to the baby through placenta, sure, but isn't that a far cry from saying "someone with AIDS"? The baby's immune system is not suppressed, it will develop on its own pace and otherwise normally, just that whatever benefits IgG would have will be delayed by the 8 months or so. I'm sure the baby could be injected in-utero with IgG isolate from someone else -- perhaps the grandma could be a donor?

Breast milk contains all 5 immunoglobulins and will restore the baby's immune function very quickly. Sure the baby shouldn't nurse from an immunosuppressed mom, it will need breastmilk from other moms, or a wet nurse.

Heck, if the baby was to be formula fed only, that would still work as long as one would show a bit of initiative. Clean and abrade some skin on your forearm. Get some plasma dripping, add to the formula. Repeat every feeding. Voila, low-tech immunotranmismission. Of course maintaining a healthy wet skin abrasion for any amount of time requires some care, but it can be pulled off.

Did you just make up the 40 year "restoration period" figure in an attempt at FUD? Because that's just pure fiction.

Re:interesting angle

[Tolkien]

He should be strung up, I'd say. Possibly drawn and quartered.

Re:interesting angle

[Demolition]

Just FYI...

The doctor (read: butcher) was found guilty of "maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm" back in March. His sentencing hearing began earlier this month. The woman gave a victim impact statement last week and the judge is now deliberating on the sentence.

Although, I doubt the doctor will be strung up or drawn and quartered, he will probably be censured for breaching medical ethics and will likely be on the hook for a big cash award. Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets in cases like this.

Re:interesting angle

[GameboyRMH]

Maybe this is how the children were born on "The OC?"

"That show with the 20 year old teenagers and the 30 year old parents" - Flamin' dude from Will & Grace

(TV remote + women = brain poison)

Re:well ...

[kimvette]

Uterus != ovaries, so no.

Responsible?

[steevven1]

I feel bad for the girl who has problems with infertility, but is it really responsible to put your child at higher risk by having it grow in an essentially experimental situation, when you could just deal with your unfortunate problem, make the best of a bad situation, and possibly adopt?

Re:Responsible?

[orangesquid]

Or possibly utilize a surrogate mother. My gf and I have been looking at bother adoptions (adoption and surrogates) because she has to take *incredibly* strong antiepileptics for trigeminal neuralgia. Uterine transplantation seems almost like an unnecessary step---if your mother can be the surrogate, why try to move the uterus and bring additional risk on the baby?
Disclaimer: didn't RTFA.

Re:Responsible?

[Nidi62]

Or at the very least, if she wanted a biological child, surrogacy

Re:Responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

agree.

It is pathetic how many resources are wasted on fertility medicine. There are plenty of children in need of adoption (not the foreign adopt a stolen kid kind); many children languish in foster care, only to graduate to the penal system when they turn 18. These kids could have radically different life paths if, folks instead invested the money, that would have gone to a fertility clinic, in an adopted child's education and upbringing..

Re:Responsible?

[SilentChasm]

Or at the very least, if she wanted a biological child, surrogacy

Seriously, that sounds like the most reasonable thing to do.
Why go through the mess of transplantation of that magnitude?
Random question: Would a mother who used a surrogate be referred to as the biological mother or is genetic mother a better term? Isn't the surrogate biologically the mother (though not genetically)?

Re:Responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surrogate mothers are not allowed in Sweden.

Re:Responsible?

[Seumas]

No, you have to remember. Squirting out one of your own makes you a wise sage and quite nearly a saint for looking after your own responsibility for the next eighteen years. It's everyone else who doesn't squirt one out and demand to replicate their genetic structure like wild dogs that are selfish and self-centered. Media outlets act like the people in this family are a cross between victims and heroes, when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

There's a variety of different ways uterine transplants can be done, and different surgeons are looking at different ones. Two major differences are whether you're dealing donors from cadavers and donors from live patients. Donor uteruses from cadavers obviously aren't doing their owner any good. Donor uteruses from live patients will be generally from surgical situations where the uterus would be removed anyway (clearly not in this situation, but in the general case...). The use of cadavers allows a lot more of the surrounding tissue to be transplanted, which makes blood vessel reconnections easier; however, organs from cadavers are more likely to have complications.

My sympathies to your GF; antiepileptics are generally pretty nasty during pregnancy to the fetus. My spouse is also epileptic, although is trying to wean herself off them. I myself follow this news closely.

Re:Responsible?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's an interesting question: On the one hand, every medical procedure is experimental at some point and a statistically powerful population of poor suckers biting the bullet is the only way that that changes. On the other hand, infertility treatments are arguably 'elective' and place the hypothetical child at risk.

Unfortunately, this brings us right into the deep end of the dubiously possible business of trying to talk sensibly about the moral interests of entities that only hypothetically exist. Any decision to procreate, by whatever means, necessarily exposes the child that may eventually be produced to a set of risks. The level of risk runs from "almost certain to go about as well as it ever does for a human before their inevitable death" to "just plain fucked from day one"; but it is always there. Unfortunately, you can't exactly ask an entity that doesn't exist yet whether it would like to or not, nor can you be especially confident in talking about whether or not a nonexistent entity would consider existence to be a good that is worth the risk. Since it suits us, we generally just go for it.

I suspect that the patient in question is further along the fetal risk continuum than one would like; but they are hardly alone in that rather sticky question. What level of risk is acceptable? What level of risk is ethically questionable but within their rights? Is there a level of risk at which attempts to procreate would amount to a sort of premeditated abuse of a child, or a kind of negligent homicide?

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

How many resources are wasted on curing people of blindness? How many resources are wasted on curing deafness? On fixing broken limbs? On cleft palate? On spinal deformities? On countless things that are about quality of life, not survival?

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Pregnancies while on immunosuppressants are not rare. There's a huge body of data on their effects on fetuses. There's no body of data on humans born from transplanted uteruses, of course, but the immunosuppressant side is already well covered, and at least in theory, that is the area of concern.

The risk to the patient is *very* real. Transplants are dangerous in the best of circumstances. The patient only needs to carry the transplant for 1 1/2 to 2 years (there's a period after the transplant where they monitor the organ for signs of failure, then there's at least one attempt at implantation, then the organ is removed at the time of birth) -- but there's still significnt chance of risk -- almost certainly a double-digit chance of death. But here's how I personally look at it. The rate of death during pregnancy before modern medicine was about 1.5%, and the average woman had many children (let's say 7 or so) to account for the high rate of infant and child mortality. That's a 10% chance of death per woman. Yet if women hadn't taken that risk -- sometimes accidentally, but more often, knowingly -- we, as a species, would not exist.

Re:Responsible?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd say she should adopt a child. I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

Re:Responsible?

[fnj]

Worst. Parallels. Ever.

Seriously.

Re:Responsible?

[Macrat]

Mod parent up please.

Re:Responsible?

[Macrat]

I'd say she should adopt a child. I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

Agreed. I've never understood the need to waste resources on reproduction when there are so many unwanted children in the world looking for a home.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Quality of life is quality of life, whether you agree with why it is quality of life to a person or not. There are many, many women on this planet who would disagree with you.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

So, is it your view that because someone views something as so important that it's worth taking on a major risk to their life to do, that because you disagree with it (having never been in anywhere close to such a situation), it should be banned?

Re:Responsible?

[phantomfive]

Not possible in this case, as surrogacy is illegal in Sweden (per the article).

Re:Responsible?

[Kjella]

Those that fight to have their own child, stay in the gene pool. Those that don't and raise someone else's, exit the gene pool. You don't get much stronger evolutionary pressure than that. Also from what I've heard it's not that hard to find people to adopt babies or very young children. Those you find in foster care are often older, taken out of their home because they've suffered neglect, abuse or molestation and alcoholics or junkies as parents. As a result many of them have developed huge problems of their own, which many people are reluctant to adopt. And if you end up with someone that's already in the rebellious phase who likes to point out you're not his real parents, well the amount of bonding you get will be limited. Even if people got other the part about having their own child, don't expect the institutions to be empty.

Re:Responsible?

[interkin3tic]

I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

No it isn't. There aren't a lot of people dying of starvation due to scarcity of food, which is the usual way of indicating overpopulation. Seems to me that people starving these days are mostly due to neglect or problems with distribution, both of which would happen with half the population we have now.

Environmental damage is not a sign of overpopulation either, that's poor resource management and again, could and would be happening with half our population levels.

We're certainly not running out of space on Earth, so that's right out.

Seriously, what makes you say the world is overpopulated? Traffic on your commute getting worse? Warped elitism "I didn't have a kid, and it was because having a kid is an irresponsible thing to do?"

Anyway, it looks like Sweden's population is growing extremely slow, 0.9% in 2009. One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.

Re:Responsible?

[EdgeCreeper]

Maybe because it is because most people like to reproduce rather than show altruism as great as adopting a child. You know, human nature.

Re:Responsible?

[gohmifune]

Yep, give the breeders a "way out" of their grief and allow them to keep spawning children knowing that there are people who will take care of their "mistake" so they don't have to.

Irregardless of the reproductive choices of some, all children have the right to love and a chance to thrive. No child is a mistake. Some are victims of circumstances, but never a mistake.

We should be willing to care for children. They have right to be cared for.

Re:Responsible?

[RubberChainsaw]

That's all well and good, but adopting your kid doesn't help propagate my genetic structure. I bet that's a pretty big reason for why fertility is a booming industry, while adoption isn't.

Re:Responsible?

[interkin3tic]

when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.

Someone is very hasty to judge on the internet. It's entirely possible that she'd adopt too, having your own children and adopting is not mutually exclusive. She obviously has her own reasons she wanted to have a child herself, don't know why you'd boil it down to "If you want baby, adopt." And all that I've heard about adopting is that it is not an easy process. I can't imagine the process is any easier in Sweden, where the population is not booming. It is plausible that transplanting her mother's uterus is an easier method to get a kid than adopting is.

Re:Responsible?

[narcc]

How many resources are wasted on curing deafness?

Most of them, I'd wager. The "deaf community" is very hostile to cochlear implants -- they actually think being deaf is a good thing.

There's a neat documentary (it's watch instant on netflix) called "Sound and Fury". If you didn't hate "deaf culture", you will after watching this eye-opening documentary.

Never mind the rampant illiteracy and extraordinarily low unemployment, these idiots think that being deaf is perfectly normal and that they're not limited in way. Thus, they refuse their children the one technology that will make their lives easier.

Hell, one deaf school fired it's superintendent for not being deaf from birth. These people are evil.

Re:Responsible?

[theheadlessrabbit]

"Why go through the mess of transplantation of that magnitude?"

Do it for science.

If this is a world-first, regardless of the outcome, these doctors will learn from this experiment, and the body of human knowledge will grow. I think it's entirely worth it to do crazy medical stuff like this when people volunteer.

If we don't try, we won't ever know what' possible to achieve.

Re:Responsible?

[eugene ts wong]

Yes, you are very hasty to judge on the internet. The article/video said that she will adopt if the operation fails.

Quit judging people who speak out for orphans. They aren't statistics. They people will real needs. If the process is difficult, then speak out against it on behalf of the orphans and adopting parents.

As for it being difficult to adopt, the article/video implied that being infertile is a painful experience. In other words, the focus seemed to be about her desire to give birth, and not about her difficulty in adopting.

Re:Responsible?

[eugene ts wong]

You are putting words in "her" mouth. The anonymous coward never said that it was because "she" disagreed with it. I put the pronouns in quotes, because we don't know whether the person is a man or a woman, and whether or not the has *never* been anywhere close to such a situation. You are probably replying to a guy who hasn't, but you are being presumptuous.

Re:Responsible?

[eugene ts wong]

1 thing that I genuinely love about this place is the way that we recommend books and documentaries. I'll check it out.

Re:Responsible?

[cheekyjohnson]

No it isn't.

No, you misunderstand. It's overpopulated to me, specifically. I wouldn't mind there being less humans, even if it is sustainable. That's why I said "I think."

One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.

If the world were truly overpopulated, then yes it would. That is but one mentality that helps cause it.

Re:Responsible?

[coolgeek]

I think having mom be a surrogate is contraindicated. Older women are more susceptible to preeclampsia.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Excuse me, but where did I make an assessment of their gender?

Re:Responsible?

[Hungus]

All these orphans are unwanted why not just perform REALLY late term abortions on them? Nothing magical happens by traveling down a vagina. The NY Times reported in 2007 some 32% of children never traveled down one, they were delivered via cesarian. Since they are not old enough to survive on their own (hence the need for fostering/ adoption) save us all some money and just pop a 22 round in them, or use them for science experiments instead of the poor bunnies and chimps which are getting rights anyways. Even better train the older ones as suicide bombers or assassins or heck if you want to be nice and keep them around anyway let them be useful just reinstitute slavery.

My grandparents were foster parents, adopted 1 (in addition their their natural 3) and tried to adopt a 2nd, courts would not let them despite the fact that they were more than capable of taking care of another child (their 2 oldest were already off at college). While Granddad may not have been uber wealthy money wise he did have 160 acres including farmland and livestock plus he was a mail carrier, barber, welder and volunteer fireman.

Re:Responsible?

[Hungus]

[begin massive sarcasm]All these orphans are unwanted why not just perform REALLY late term abortions on them? Nothing magical happens by traveling down a vagina. The NY Times reported in 2007 some 32% of children never traveled down one, they were delivered via cesarian. Since they are not old enough to survive on their own (hence the need for fostering/ adoption) save us all some money and just pop a 22 round in them, or use them for science experiments instead of the poor bunnies and chimps which are getting rights anyways. Even better train the older ones as suicide bombers or assassins or heck if you want to be nice and keep them around anyway let them be useful just reinstitute slavery.[/end massive sarsasm]

My grandparents were foster parents, adopted 1 (in addition their their natural 3) and tried to adopt a 2nd, courts would not let them despite the fact that they were more than capable of taking care of another child (their 2 oldest were already off at college). While Granddad may not have been uber wealthy money wise he did have 160 acres including farmland and livestock plus he was a mail carrier, barber, welder and volunteer fireman.

Dangit, it ripped my pseudocode sarcasm tags off the first paragraph.
There, it is corrected now
Oh well, I am going to get marked flaimbait or over rated or something anyways.

Re:Responsible?

[cheekyjohnson]

assumes some moral standing

I don't believe in absolute morals. I believe in opinions. If you somehow thought that my comment implied that I thought that she was morally wrong, then you may need to reread it. I only gave my opinion.

I think that this world is already overpopulated with arrogant humans as it is.

I do agree with this, though.

Re:Responsible?

[outsider007]

It's legal in Sweden if attorneys are present. Otherwise you have contractually raped the surrogate's uterus. Which is a misdemeanor.

Re:Responsible?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Really? Wow. Between that and the bestiality laws/psychotic drug police Sweden is getting less and less attractive by the day.

Re:Responsible?

[outsider007]

That's a fine hullabaloo, but if your genetic structure were so great, ladies would be lining up to propogate it, which they are not.

Re:Responsible?

[Roduku]

According to the article, surrogate mothers are illegal in Sweden

Re:Responsible?

[realityimpaired]

It isn't the same, and wouldn't be enough to satisfy many women. And I say that as a woman who can't get pregnant due to a lack of a functioning uterus. Part of me desperately wants to have children (in spite of being a lesbian, and despite my partner bringing 4 kids from her previous marriage), and I can say quite plainly that adoption or using a surrogate isn't the same. If there was a surgical procedure that could give me the ability to bear children myself, I would leap on it. And if the opportunity to be part of developing that procedure arose, I would have a very hard time saying no, even in full awareness that it could put my own life at risk, and lead to an increased chance of a miscarriage... a small chance of bearing a healthy baby is better than no chance of it.

Re:Responsible?

[eugene ts wong]

I never meant to imply that you did. My point is that you made reasonable assumptions, but they weren't fair, because we didn't have enough information, unless there is something that I missed.

Re:Responsible?

[eugene ts wong]

:^D This is Slashdot, so your comment would have fit in with the context. I actually know a Slashdotter who supports aborting children up to 2 years of age. I thought that he was trying to make a point, but he really believes it.

5 jobs, eh? That's something worth remembering for Father's Day.

Re:Responsible?

[tequila_j]

Seriously, what makes you say the world is overpopulated?

Too much stress about a simple comment/opinion....?

Re:Responsible?

[misexistentialist]

Traffic on your commute getting worse?

Why dismiss that? Certainly resources are finite, and there seems to be no benefit to population increases--we certainly don't have the four Albert Einsteins we are due who could find a way to teleport us to work.

Re:Responsible?

[Creepy]

Not sure of the state of this technology for humans because I'm sure it's stifled by religious politics (I do know it is used for certain species of endangered shark), but why adopt or take the risk of a donor womb when an artificial uterus would solve the problem? 9 months of extra freedom, no risk to the mom's life, and no hormonal baby blues (unless she takes hormones to lactate) - it seems like the way to go.

My wife and I decided not to have kids, partially because we both have bad genetic issues, so I personally don't really have any issues with genetic engineering that is used to fix genetic problems. Playing God is the last thing I worry about - God (belief issues aside) failed to create a perfect human or else allowed others (e.g. Satan) to create flaws in us and therefore is fallible (why would he allow that?), and therefore I think we should be able to fix the flaws.

Re:Responsible?

[phantomfive]

Yeah, so much for their reputation for a liberal, corruption-free Scandinavian haven.

Re:Responsible?

[phantomfive]

I know what you are saying is true in many cases, but you might want to be careful getting all your information from a single documentary. There are a lot of deaf people, maybe even most, who aren't so insane......

Re:Responsible?

[tibit]

Is a need for personal satisfaction something that cannot be overcome?

Re:Responsible?

[realityimpaired]

It isn't a question of personal satisfaction... there's other forces at play there. Instinct, biological urges, hormones going haywire within peoples' systems, to say nothing of the psychology involved in wanting something you can't have (it would be different if I could, I'm sure), especially when your circle of friends starts settling down and having kids.

It can be overcome. There's people out there who adopt, or who choose never to have kids. In my case, it's moot, though: I was never given the choice. I'm at peace with that, but it doesn't mean that if I were to wake up tomorrow and have the choice, I wouldn't be happy with it.

Re:Responsible?

[Miser]

I wish I had mod points, as I'd mod you up as high as the system would let me.

My gal and I? Childfree and loving it. :)

Cheers,

Miser

Re:Responsible?

[Vasheron]

My mother works as a home-visiting teacher for deaf and hard of hearing children in Ontario. Many hearing parents, who just are simply unfortunate to have a deaf child, want their children to have cochlear implants and lead relatively normal lives. There are, however, a few deaf parents who are stuck in their ways and want to sign with their children, but this is on the decline as the technology has gotten better, cheaper, and the benefits of having (mostly) hearing children have been made plainly obvious.

Re:Responsible?

[tibit]

It isn't a question of personal satisfaction... there's other forces at play there. Instinct, biological urges, hormones going haywire within peoples' systems

Look, if all that was driving me was instinct and biological urges, I'd probably have more kids with more women than I could reasonably remember. I think that being able to overcome instinct and urges is what makes us human. To think otherwise would imply that you should be OK to have teenagers fucking at every corner. If you're OK with that, then sorry, I'm barking up the wrong tree. Otherwise, what you pass for an argument doesn't fly by me so far, sorry.

Re:Responsible?

[Vasheron]

...a few deaf parents who are stuck in their ways and want to sign with their children...

Sorry, this should read "...a few deaf parents who are stuck in their ways and ONLY want to sign with their children...". Naturally, in Ontario we prefer that hard of hearing children of deaf parents are bilingual, so that they can communicate with their parents and with the rest of society =)

Re:Responsible?

[bhtooefr]

I'd argue that humans are overpopulated for sociological reasons.

A large number of humans are incapable of performing good resource management, which feeds the problem.

Re:Responsible?

[speederaser]

..but why adopt or take the risk of a donor womb when an artificial uterus would solve the problem?

To answer your question, here is the first sentence from the page you linked to (emphasis mine):

An artificial uterus (or womb) is a theoretical device...

In other words, they don't exist.

Re:Responsible?

[GameboyRMH]

Being born from a corpse uterus? That's pretty fuckin' metal. /goingtohell

Re:Responsible?

[GameboyRMH]

WTF? Sweden has some fucked up laws. But it's a different kinda fucked up, so at least that's refreshing.

Re:Responsible?

[trytoguess]

Just what in the documentary made it possible to claim that about several million people? Admittedly I'm not deaf, but I am a bilingual from a country that's homogeneous, and there's a handful of people who'd always think of me as somehow... culturally tainted cause I'm familiar with American language and culture. But the important part is, it's only a handful of people. I doubt the deaf community is any different. Hell, deaf folks don't even have to worry about crap like loss of an ancient culture due to westernization and stuff.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Artificial uteruses do not exist, and it's not the same bonding experience.

At least no matter what, I'll be able to help breastfeed. Domperidone is an amazing drug.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

You made me smile :)

If I ever have the chance to have such a procedure, I'll definitely tell that to my child.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Sounds like you and I are in the same boat here. The only difference is I'm actually taking steps -- however long of shots they are -- to become a candidate in such experimental procedures. I actually spoke to someone from this university a year or so ago (they referred me to some places in the US who are doing research).

It's hard for someone who doesn't want to have children and/or is fertile to understand what it's like. The current plan is for my partner -- if she can stay off her anticonvulsants and get off her antidepressants -- to carry a child for us (some major "if"s). But just knowing how I felt just having my sister pregnant in the same town, I know that'll be really hard for me. The only thing that makes me happy about it is knowing that we'll end up with a child.

Re:Responsible?

[trytoguess]

Also, just to note, there's a sequel to the documentary called Sound and Fury 6 Years Later. Turns out the two deaf parents decided to implant Heather 3 years later when she was 9, and even the mom got implanted. All in all, I think the parents acted in a fairly understandable way. Initially, they were against implanting since it brought up too much emotions about deaf people being inferior, but they later accepted that it'd be better if the kids were able to walk two worlds so to speak. Frankly their issues were so similar to the ones faced by immigrant cultures that it was rather eerie.

Re:Responsible?

[F'Nok]

The desire to carry your own children and actually doing it are different things.

No one claimed it had anything to do with lust urges or fucking each other, that's a whole different thing.

It's a long term desire, not an irresponsible desire.
As someone that also cannot carry her own children, I too would jump at any chance to be able to do so, even if the risks were high to myself.

It's not about overcoming instinct or urges. I certainly could say no, and if they risks were *really* high, I would say no.
But different desires carry different weights. I would not endure any risk to do many things (ie, unprotected sex) but things of much higher personal value or desire I would endure some fairly high risks (ie, being able to carry my own children).

Some people take high risks for many (non instinctual or biological) desires, like people that want to break world records, or perform dangerous stunts, or engage in dangerous sports or activities.
It's incorrect to assume it's a matter of overcoming a base instinct or desire. It's more like a life dream or goal.
One you know you cannot acheive, but would endure high risk to have the chance to acheive it.

Re:Responsible?

[tibit]

You have said in a really long-winded way that there's this built-in preservation of species instinct that you've got no control over. I understand. There's no need to rationalize and compare it to a sport or doing stunts, that's just silly, it's a different thing. Some people can get on top of it and overcome their instincts, some can't. No biggie. I just hate the rationalization and comparisons to breaking records... To be able to see how what you said is a rationalization, replace bearing children with your next big thing on the to-do list, then write it down, sleep over it for a week, then read it and see for yourself whether you get a chuckle out of it.

Re:Responsible?

[narcc]

Just what in the documentary made it possible to claim that about several million people?

Sorry, I don't follow. The documentary was just an easy to access example for those not familiar with deaf culture. My opinions are in no way formed exclusively form that one documentary!

If you're interested, I recommend searching through deaf blogs and forums about AB 2072.

Re:Responsible?

[Twisted64]

If you didn't hate "deaf culture", you will after watching this eye-opening documentary.

Sounds like a lot of documentaries on certain cultures...

these idiots think that being deaf is perfectly normal and that they're not limited in way.

one deaf school fired it's superintendent for not being deaf from birth.

...no, it sounds EXACTLY like a documentary on religion in society. It's sad that some people will sacrifice their children's future rather than alienate themselves from their offspring.

Re:Responsible?

[F'Nok]

That's a pretty amazing misrepresentation of it.

It you want to be so essentialist, then you can easily argue that wanting to do dangerous things and risk-seeking behaviour are part of a (typically considered) male biological drive.
Alternatively, we can take the more realistic stance that there are biological factors in all desires, but that some, like child rearing and family building are not entirely biological and have strong social factors as well.

By not carrying a child, a mother misses out on what most women regard as an unrivalled life experience.
Wanting to have that experience is no different than wanting to visit Paris or Rome.

I can (and likely will) adopt to have a family.
But I will be sad to miss out on the experience most mothers have.
You place little value on the experience, and you're welcome to, but it's a little ridiculous to say it's about getting on top of instincts or not.

Not to mention the rather dubious insinuation that instincts should be overcome to begin with.
Some instincts are bad, some are good. Broad generalisations are stupid.

Re:Responsible?

[narcc]

no, it sounds EXACTLY like a documentary on religion in society.

I only mentioned the video in passing as I thought it would be a good introduction for those not familiar with the controversy.

Oh, the deaf school bit isn't from the documentary. You might want to watch it before you pass judgement and comment on its contents.

Anyhow, it doesn't take much searching to find any number of similar stories about jobs lost for not being "deaf enough". You might even remember the recent (2006) Gallaudet protests.

Re:Responsible?

[trytoguess]

Sorry, I don't follow. The documentary was just an easy to access example for those not familiar with deaf culture. My opinions are in no way formed exclusively form that one documentary!

Fair enough, and my mistake for assuming so. To be honest though, you really should have supplied more than one source if you wanted to sell the idea that deaf people are strongly against the implant. Especially since the documentary only got like less than a dozen deaf people's opinions on the matter, and most of them were from old people.

Re:Responsible?

[eam]

From the article:

"So too in Sweden are surrogate mothers illegal."

Re:Responsible?

[realityimpaired]

mm... you're right. I don't think anybody who is fertile, or who has decided not to have kids will understand. It's why I stopped replying to the other person who's been replying: I just don't think I'll get him to understand at all, no matter how I put it.

I wish you luck with the program. :) My need to have kids has been somewhat sated, because my partner has kids from her previous relationship, but I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I can't bear to be around my brother and his wife at the moment, because they just had their third... it really hurt every time I saw his wife while she was pregnant. It isn't so bad right now, but because the baby is less than 6 months old, I am staying away from them. It hurt too much while their other two were infants, and I couldn't really stand it until the kids were toddlers. There's a few other factors in my cast that would make me a bad candidate for an experimental procedure (largely scheduling, but some financial), which is the main reason I'm not looking too far into it. I think I may ask my doctor next time I see him, though... :)

incidentally... nihonjin desuka? atashi wa daigaku de nihongo wo benkyoushita no... :) nihon de eigo wo oshietakatta, demo mada itta koto ga nai. :(

Re:Responsible?

[tibit]

Instincts should be overcome because, ultimately, we're not savages. I don't mean that all instincts are bad, sometimes they align with what's reasonable or simply pleasurable and otherwise OK to do. But when instinct is all that drives you, without anything else, then I think it's somewhat dangerous.

There must be a reason, though, that most women regard bearing children as "unrivalled life experience". It's probably a combination of groupthink and instincts. It's an important lesson in self discovery I think to first of all identify them as such, and then to be able to steer yourself clear if needed.

Pregnancy is, on the face of it, a physically miserable experience. Our own bodies have to make, in essence, psychotropic drugs that make you forget after the fact. So you can of course make it feel, to you, as a great thing, but you have to be aware that it's only you who did that. Objectively it's still miserable. Recognizing that you have the ability to turn something unpleasant into something unrivalledly pleasant is the first step. The second step is being able to apply the same method to just anything else that you do, in absence of endocrine helpers. In principle, that life's experiences are what you make of them. You don't necessarily have to do X to have a great experience because the consensus says it is one. Anything you do, even the most mundane things, can become an great experiences. It's up to you.

You probably realize that majority of what most "people group X" do is something you will miss on. Whether it's mothers, sports champions, astronauts, Nepalese trekkers, etc. -- there's plenty of sufficiently large groups of people out there who do something you won't ever do. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just a fact of life in the sense that we have limited lifespans and there are physically limited resources available to us.

Re:Responsible?

[elrous0]

There are plenty of children in need of adoption

You think that adopting a 14-year-old son of a crack dealer and a prostitute is going to be the same as having your own baby? Ha, obviously you aren't familiar with the kids out there available for adoption. We're not talking about a bunch of cute little white babies just waiting at the pound. It's mostly a bunch of very fucked-up minority preteens and teens with serious behavioral problems stemming from the shitty parents who they were taken away from. That's in a completely different world than having your own baby.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

(Conditional on them growing up to have the sort of dark sense of humor to appreciate that sort of thing, of course ;) )

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[schwit1]

Is elective surgery paid for by the taxpayer? If so, what is not?

I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Seumas]

Fucking adopt. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to xerox as exact a copy of yourself as possible, how about you save all the money involved in this process and just adopt a kid or two? For the price most people spend in various attempts to squirt one of their own out (aside from this particular incident, of course), they could adopt someone and have their entire college fund taken care of from day one.

I know I'm supposed to feel sorry for people like this. Boo hoo, you can't replicate like a ferrel cat. Tough shit. All those kids without families have it a hell of a lot harder than that.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I fully agree. Their actions are socially irresponsible, to say the least.

To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

To blind people. Fucking get a cane. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to see like everyone else, how about you save all the money involved in this process and just get a cane or two?

Sorry, but many surgeries are about quality of life. And it's easy to play down another person's needs, but when it's your own, suddenly it's different.

FYI: Müllerian agenesis (aka, Rokitansky Syndrome) doesn't just affect the uterus. The upper part of the vagina is also part of the Müllerian duct. The fact that this isn't the prime focus of transplants should clue you in to how important having children can be to someone.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

It's not even known whether Rokitansky syndrome is genetic, but I notice how you just assume it is. If you want to talk about "attacks against the gene pool", why aren't you arguing that the numerous childhood diseases with *known* genetic components stop getting treatment?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about there, but adopting babies almost impossible in US. There simply is not enough to fulfill the need.

I have some relatives that tried to "save the world" as they put it, and adopt kids (not babies). These are very intelligent parents, one has masters in nursing, the second a masters in mathematics and education. The kids were not emotionally stable when they got them at ages from about 8-10 years old. 30 years later one killed himself after losing total visitation rights to his kids, a second has also lost total visitation rights and pretty much hangs with teenagers doing drugs, a third has never been able to keep stable relationships and therefore has never had a family. As a control, their own biological kids turned out great. They also say with hindsight they would not do it again.

I have several professional friends that have elected to adopt. None of them were able to do it in the US (one Russia, rest China).

I believe there is a very strong desire among most adults to replicate.

Appreciate your cost saving ideals, but not sure there is a practical solution.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

So if a woman wanted to have a child enough that she was willing to give up her sight for it, would you change your mind? What if she was willing to take on a 1 in 4 chance of *dying*? Because I wouldn't be surprised if those are her odds in this procedure.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

He's talking about the gene pool, and as far as the gene pool is concerned, there is no difference. Plus, the cause of Rokitansky syndrome is unknown. And many women who will be candidates for this apart from those with Rokitansky syndrome are those who lost their uterus for various reasons, such as cancer.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[jmottram08]

From someone who doesn't have children.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[cheekyjohnson]

To blind people. Fucking get a cane.

Except that blind people are currently alive and them gaining the ability to see will not increase the human population (which I believe is already too much). What's wrong with adoption, anyway? I mean, sure, she can have the opinion that having a real children is better (and she wouldn't necessarily be wrong), but what is the actual reason?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

Except that blind people are currently alive and them gaining the ability to see will not increase the human population

So it is your view that it's okay to override what is most important to someone -- something so important to them that they'd seriously risk their life -- for population control?

Why not just cut out a couple steps and dump birth control into the public water supply?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Of course! Nothing should stand in the way of The Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge!

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[cheekyjohnson]

So it is your view that it's okay to override what is most important to someone

I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.

Why not just cut out a couple steps and dump birth control into the public water supply?

I'm not sure that's safe. However, if something out of our control happened that rendered most people unable to reproduce, I don't think I'd care too much (although I wouldn't want to force it upon them).

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Since when is having children a need?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Duradin]

In other words, someone who can still think rationally. Well, rationally is optional, they can still think.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

I don't see where my post said or implied that at all. I said that there is a difference. For instance, someone could be of the opinion that living people should be able to live but not be able to overpopulate the planet.

Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life, but oppose a different quality of life procedure because it will "increase the human population".

(although I wouldn't want to force it upon them).

Would you or would you not force it on this woman by banning this procedure?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Which doesn't change my point at all.

If doctors suspect any kind of cancer on you, the first thing they'll ask you before doing any tests will be if there's a history on your family. Cancer is not genetic, but there is a genetic predisposition for cancer.

Things get worked out through many generations, unless we prevent evolution from doing its thing.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[nido]

I believe there is a very strong desire among most adults to replicate.

A person can learn a lot from their kids. Raising children is a learning experience unlike any other. Some people don't want to go there, and that's fine for them.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[jmottram08]

Wait, so you think that procreating is irrational. Only on Slashdot.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[interkin3tic]

To make matters worse, they are using medicine to spread defective DNA. Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.

What you're describing is only consistent with the idea of gradualism in evolution, which was discarded by most evolutionary biologists in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

Natural selection isn't really a constant force in any species throughout the history of life. It doesn't need to constantly act on a species to keep that species in shape. Evolution acts to create and destroy whole species, it doesn't act to improve species.

Talking about evolution and human genetics gets even more ridiculous in this case. As another poster pointed out, this disease isn't necessarily genetic. Even if it is, that's not going to spread to the entire human population. It would take many, many generations to do so in the first place, you'd be dust before having to worry about it. And since it would affect fertility, in order for it to become widespread, it would need to be easily correctable. And if that is the case, what's the problem?

Lastly, medical technology is improving rapidly, especially compared to the timescale that evolution operates on. We'll likely be able to manipulate our own genomes before too long. Maybe it will take several generations, which is a long time for a human, but before humans could slide back to any apreciable degree, we'll likely be making designer babies and directing our own evolution.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

There's a genetic predisposition to *some* cancers, and even if you have a particular cancer that has a genetic predisposition to it doesn't mean that *you* have a predisposition to it. Plus, there are plenty of other ways one can lose a uterus.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

And then why are one in every 5,000 women born without a uterus, then?

FYI: If you just let children with genetic diseases die, would not the same apply there?

That's the problem with the logic presented: the argument that we should be just letting genetic diseases die argues that we should let children with genetic diseases die, but *not* ban treatment for women who don't have a uterus.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I doubt she's doing it as a science project.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[luther349]

agreed. to many dammed people in this world to worry abougt finding news ways to make more. but we live in a world where the pretty mutch demand you fuck like rabbits for anyone to like you. but in her case she gets the plus of no kids.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[luther349]

maybe its mother natures way of saying stop makeing so many fucking humans aruldy. but i also do wanna rais the real consern if this works her kids probly will be extra retarted. at that point you just say fuck it adopt.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[luther349]

evoultion can destory or make one better. the problem is they lets the bad stay in the pool. normaly it would get whiped out.well the exgtra stupid still find funny ways to kill themself normaly they have 5 kids before they do and that a bad thing.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[luther349]

relgions pound that bs in peoples heads and some are to stupid to go wow this is a bunch of shit. whats wrong with just havin 1 or 2 kids not a dammed thing and you probly whont end up white trash couse of it. but no many think they have to have 17 kids wile working at the nearest mcdonalds.for 60 years.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Filip22012005]

I'd say ever since the beginning of life.

It's even right there in the definition of "life".

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Hognoxious]

Helping people that can't reproduce normally is going against evolution, and a direct attack on our genetic pool, and the future of our species.

Those evil opticians, allowing people to spread their short-sighted genes!

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[cheekyjohnson]

Do you or do you not support banning such procedures because you think the planet is overpopulated? You supported a non-lifesaving procedure for the purpose of improving quality of life

If you read it, I never actually said anything about myself. But if you want to know, then yes, if it would improve the quality if life of society as a whole (or in the future), then yes. I wouldn't want to force infertility upon someone, but not allowing them to have kids is something that I would support if I believed that the situation called for it.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Anonymus]

She sees it as a (highly dangerous) chance to have a kid naturally, the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot, apparently) sees it as a way to further science. It's pretty much win-win all around. I don't see why everyone here is railing against it so hard, since in most cases science for science's sake is a laudable goal around here. I imagine it is partly due to the fact Slashdot is incredibly skewed towards not only the male demographic, but the single-male-who-hates-children demographic. If this sort of thing became commonplace, yeah, it's kind of a waste, but save your disdain for later and for now respect the incredible risk this woman is taking.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[petsounds]

Given the overpopulation of the planet and scarcity of natural resources, procreation is indeed rather irrational.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Which definition is that? And I still don't see why it's a "need". I am talking more philosophically, BTW.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Khenke]

In Sweden you can't adopt a Swedish child, you can only become a foster parent, stupid as it is.

So the only option is to adopt from another country like china, eastern Europe or Africa.
That mean the child wont look like you (most Swedish are still blond and blue eyed, adoptable kids are not). For many people that don't matter, but I guess for most it does.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Khenke]

and have their entire college fund taken care of from day one.

It will cost the parents exactly $0 to get this operation done here in Sweden, and collage is free too, you even get a small monthly payout while you study (most need to take a student loan to get thou tho).

I know, horrible, right?
From what you have written I guess you are from the "land of the free", so I'm waiting for your troops to liberate me from this evil.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I have no disdain. Surely respecting the risk someone takes depends upon their intentions, too? Perhaps in her case you're right. I'm more concerned with the general trend.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

So you're not for forcing infertility on people via the water supply, but you are for forcing infertility on people by banning medical procedures used to fix them, correct? Hmm, surely there's a reason for this dischordance. Is your reasoning because of cost-effectiveness? It's certainly be a lot more cost-effective of a way to reduce the population to do so by injecting birth control into the water supply.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Shoe Puppet]

These people should adopt a child from, say, Norway or Denmark then.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[vadim_t]

Why should somebody be forced to adopt when they don't want to? You think that kid would have a happy life?

And why is it that you think that having a defect of some sort ought to force you into cleaning up the mess that the rest of the society doesn't?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[cheekyjohnson]

So you're not for forcing infertility on people via the water supply, but you are for forcing infertility on people by banning medical procedures used to fix them, correct?

No. Read it again. I said that if the world was overpopulated and we needed to lower the population for it to be sustainable (which we don't right now), I'd be in favor of making people have to have permission to have children. They could still get surgeries which allowed them to have children, but they couldn't actually have them.

It's certainly be a lot more cost-effective of a way to reduce the population to do so by injecting birth control into the water supply.

Except that I don't want to mess with the water supply for such a thing. I don't care about cost-effectiveness.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[St.Creed]

Yeah, I'm sure Norway and Denmark have *loads* of children ready for adoption... not.

EU countries have a very low amount of unwanted pregnancies, less than the rate of people who want to adopt inside that country. So there is never a surplus.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[cheekyjohnson]

And why would they care about that?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[nurb432]

Um, its not *free*, who do you think paid the taxes that are funding that stuff for you? But back to the topic, the dude is just a troll.. there is nothing wrong with what she ( they ) are trying to accomplish.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Filip22012005]

All definitions really. You could start with the first hit on Google ("define: life"). You'd find:
The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Or maybe wikipedia, where you can find:
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

But really, any definition you can find of "life", even whatever defintion you deem "philosophical", incorporates reproduction. At some point, many organisms prefer reproduction over other needs, such as food or a body remaining attached to one's own head.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[bondsbw]

Actually, according to evolution, this is the entire point... have kids and have many, survival of the fittest and all.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Duradin]

Given that recreation is tied to procreation for large swaths of society, yes, it is irrational there.

Biological imperatives, while not the definition of irrationality, share a lot of overlap. I take it you've never heard of someone being "baby crazy" in that due to their "ticking clock" they will do anything to have a baby regardless of whether or not they can afford one.

How many commercials have you seen that follow a model of announcing a pregnancy followed by lots of happy happy joy joy celebrating as opposed to commercials where people, either before or after discovering the pregnancy, ask if it is medically and financially sound to have a kid at this point?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The first sentence of Wikipedia says:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Life may reproduce, but it's not necessarily a requirement to be defined as life.

As for needs, life doesn't need anything. Life simply exists. We may say that certain conditions are required in order for life to exist and develop, but that is not the same as a "need", is it? Not in the sense the original poster was talking about.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Thiez]

It seems you are the retarded one. Your amazing 'solution' works only for dominant traits caused by a single gene. Of course if you had any clue about biology you would have known that, so until you do it might be best if you refrain from advocating eugenics.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[longhairedgnome]

That sounds like a good thing!

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Rei]

Banning fertility treatments because of hypothesized (not actual) genetic reasons is *also* eugenics.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Sure, there are many ways to loose a uterus. For example, this one time, I got drunk and fucked her best friend, so she dumped me.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Cronock]

"Philosophically"? you mean.. not based on the natural order of things? Every single person/living being in your lineage back to the first single-celled reproduction has lived to have offspring. Not a single one of your ancestors had no children. You don't NEED to have children if your life revolves around things that aren't the true purpose of life, it just means you have failed life and your genetic code is deleted from the gene pool as inferior. It then makes room for people that did succeed at Life. Sure, philosophy is neat and all.. but sometimes an issue is just so simple that philosophy has a hard time grasping it.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Cronock]

You don't NEED money, you don't NEED your hands or feet. But people don't want to be without these things, and will generally take any steps required in order to acquire, protect, or retain them.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[Rei]

Right. Chiropractic adjustments will make her grow a uterus.

I take it you didn't bother to read the article?

Sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes having a kid is *just not in the cards*. This might actually make me feel a little sicker than Octomom.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[tpotus]

As in "please choose between fertility and infertility"?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Macrat]

How about choosing adoption?

So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into....

[ip_freely_2000]

the mother-in-law's uterus. I think my testicles just shrank into my belly.

Adopt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Children are all about passing your genetic heritage down.

I have a few kids of my own, but I would have no interest in raising someone else's child. Its the equivalent of being cuckolded.

Maybe that makes some people feel good, I would rather just get a pet.

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[Nemyst]

Delivery in 15 seconds or less, guaranteed.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[raedeon]

Its sad that some Chiros actually think this way. I had mine tell me about how with chiropractic care, we could fix my hiatus hernia, acid reflux and some other stuff

How cool would it be...

[middlerun]

...if the daughter eventually donated it to her daughter in turn, and it became a family heirloom.

Re:How cool would it be...

[Arancaytar]

Subverting xkcd:

- "It's neat how you contain a little factory for making more of you.
- "And one day, it will be yours."

UTERUS

[raedeon]

So chiropractic adjustments can help her GROW A FREAKING UTERUS? She didn't develop one.

The same uterus...

[LavouraArcaica]

I guess the daughter already knew very well this uterus. ;)

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Nikker]

Choice person has to make choice ;)

Whats wrong with you people?

[metalmaster]

ADOPT! ADOPT! ADOPT!

How can you criticize a woman for doing something like this? She wants to have her own child by any means necessary that's her decision to make. There has been and always will be a different sense of nurturing from the womb onward. My mother is a mother of 4 but a mom to 14+(and this number grows.) She will show love and kindness to any child that comes into her life, but with her 4 boys there's something special. Im sure this is true of any caring mother. It takes a special kind of caring and compassionate person to be an adoptive parent. I applaud these people and I am thankful that they exist in the world, but as a man there will be nothing more special to me than to hold my baby that came from the connection i share with my partner. I know she will feel the same.

How about you focus your misdirected anger at the men and women of the world who choose to spread their legs without thinking of the consequences. Why should they go about their activities with the idea that "meh, someone will adopt this baby." I understand that not every woman has a choice. Some are forced into screwed up situations and they would rather adopt than abort, but these cases are outnumbered by the idiots who engage in senseless acts of procreation.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[jargonburn]

^ This.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Nothing wrong with preferring to have biological children, of course. But it's still a serious question to some of us. Why should a baby that is a result of your DNA more special than someone else's child? I always thought the joys of parenting were to do with human relationships rather than the passing on of one's DNA. Isn't this "something special" really just sentimentality or instinct?

As for the second part, do I really need to dignify that with a response?

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[metalmaster]

A mother's relationship with her biological child starts with the very moment that child comes from her body. The erratic emotional state of a mother(crazy love or crazy hatred) helps build that bond from the start. Breastfeeding for the very first time, and time again after that. According to the women i've shared this story with, these are crucial moments in the bonding process. Obviously adoptive parents arent going to get this start. Thats not to say they wont love the child, but this is part of that special nurturing that they miss out on.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. A mother's relationship with her biological child starts with the first time she hears it's heart beat and feels the very first flutters of movement. That relationship grows throughout the pregnancy. After birth, a huge flood of hormones surges through the mothers body - among them oxytocin which stimulates the brain to form love and bonding connections. Oxytocin is continued to be released every time she breastfeeds that baby. Mothers are biologically programmed to care more about their offspring than any others.

All of that said - there are still bad mothers out there, nature can only do so much when nurture has fucked up the rest..

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I get what you're saying. But if biological children have a greater bond, then doesn't that imply that parents who adopt don't love their children as much? Or do you think there are some important distinctions between "bond" and "love" in this context? In retrospect, one can see the differences, but if one has only raised an adopted child, then do you really think their relationship is somehow quantitatively less special or advantageous? If you can have biological children, then that's great, and you can embrace it for what it is. But I don't see how it's important enough to risk three of the lives of the people involved in the relationship, especially when there are other people in need who will surely fore-fill each others lives just as much.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[tibit]

"oxytocin which stimulates the brain to form love and bonding connections" is that fiction, or do you have anything to support that?

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[Hylandr]

I wouldn't call a freight train of medical science 'light' ...

- Dan.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[Hylandr]

Nobody will *ever* be capable of loving your child more than yourself, unless you are severely mentally damaged.

- Dan.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

What do you mean by that, exactly?

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[snadrus]

When raising a child allows you to experience the behaviors you and your spouse had growing up, there is a lot you can learn about yourself and your view on the world. There's also greater understanding about your spouse that's only partially visible in their responses to a different child; the other part being how the child acts.

Instincts are therefore a big piece of it, but the child's instincts are the ones of interest that allow the parents to better understand themselves and better prepare the child for adulthood.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[interkin3tic]

Heh Dr.Bob,DC is a known troller (Some even suspect it is a bot)

Bah, they only suspect that because they are paranoid because their humors are out of balance because their chi is misdirected because they have subluxations. A good vertebral adjustment and trepanation will make them realize Dr. Bob is a modern day medical messiah.

Re:recursion?

[AnotherBrian]

Hmm, there's got to be some sort of topological argument against this.

That's a neat recursion

[Arancaytar]

First you come out of it, then they put it into you, so someone else can come out of it.

Re:That's a neat recursion

[coolgeek]

I believe the word you are looking for is "iteration". It's also much more efficient with stack space.

Save it for the wedding

[digital_bacon]

Something Old, Something Used, Something Borrowed, Something..... ewwwwww

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[dotgain]

Wow, never seen two anonymous people wager $10,000 on the internet before.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[interkin3tic]

How about choosing adoption?

Story was posted at 11:25 PM, yours at 12:17 AM. So it took Slashdot at most 45 minutes to think of adoption. This woman presumably has been thinking about it longer. She's consulted with doctors, who are generally not idiots. Her mother is obviously on board, so it's safe to assume that her family is involved in this decision. So there are multiple people who are talking to her about this.

You can't possibly believe adoption had neither occurred to her, nor had it been suggested to her at some point.

She -must-- have some reason why she didn't want to adopt. Maybe you and I wouldn't agree with the reasons, but she has them.

option 2

[luther349]

dont have kids trust me your not missing anything lol.

A child at any price?

[bradley13]

This is great for writing medical papers, but in truth it is simply irresponsible medicine. If she can't have a child, well, life's a bitch. If this works, she is going to be on massive medication, like any transplant patient. To conceive and carry a child under those circumstances is simply nuts. Even organizations that totally support transplant patients point out the massive risks involved.

If this woman is this desperate for a child, she needs psychological counseling more than she needs a new uterus.

Re:A child at any price?

[coolgeek]

She can always have a hysterectomy after having the kid(s) to get off the anti-rejection meds.

Re:A child at any price?

[elocinanna]

If "Life's a bitch" meant "we shall do nothing to prevent life from being so bitchy" then we wouldn't have any doctors at all. Granted, this may be seen as less necessary than operations to preserve life, but there may well be some interesting knowledge that comes from this about how we make life. Someone had to have the first surrogacy, and there are many people now who are very glad that someone tried it and figured out how to make it work. As a woman also born without a womb, this is very exciting to me. There's an awful lot of ancestral instinct pushing me toward having my own child, and I'd love to think that one day this process could be adapted to help women like myself who were born with male phenotypes.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

So, you're saying that because the idea ran through her head, she must have given it proper thought.

According to the article, suffering of infertility seems to be more unbearable than being unadopted. Some times, I think that orphans are societal rejects. We act as if there is no urgency to put them in families.

Re:So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into..

[imsabbel]

Yup.

Plus the woman will be able to do a chinatown... "She is my daughter.... and my sister..."

(ok, actually not, as she does not have a genetic contribution its not her biological daughter...)

If this fails, she plans to adopt

[gr8dude]

The ending bit of the video attached to the article - "if this fails, she plans to adopt". Can you blame her for trying before giving up?

You say "can't replicate like a feral cat", but that is not what is really happening. Those parents who abandon their children usually breed like feral cats (hence there is a great supply of such children), whereas in her case it is not mentioned anywhere that she wants a "houseful" of babies.

You also say that people should better spend their money in different ways. But if they earned it, don't they have the right to choose what to do with it? [as long as it is not something illegal - like buying guns and killing other people]

I may have acted differently, had I been in their shoes, but I can't say I have reasons to say they are stupid or irresponsible.

Re:If this fails, she plans to adopt

[gr8dude]

That would be a valid point, except that someone else mentioned in another thread that this disease is not yet well understood, and that assuming that it is genetic is not the right thing to do.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rokitansky+syndrome - it is congenital, but that does not imply it is genetic.

The problem can be reformulated. Let's say someone shot her in the belly and destroyed her uterus. She would then decide to go for the transplant.

Given that the 'genetic pool' argument doesn't hold water anymore, would you change your point of view?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Richard Dick Head]

For real.

I'm sure that uterus will become immortal, passing from mother to daughter for all eternity.

Somehow we have to allow people choice, and yet, the human imperative to breed means they go out and pass on their deformities to the next generation, making the problem worse.

Ultimately, an enlightened person will come to the conclusion that genetically engineering the human race (at least selecting the best available of the couple's sperm and ova) is the only way that all of humanity will not become degenerate slaves to modern medicine.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[coolgeek]

I'm sorry, may I see your ticket for tonight's show? Oh, you don't have one, well, that will be $50 please.

Re:So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into..

[coolgeek]

Maybe the mom is totally hot and it multiplies hubby's excitement.

Re:recursion?

[coolgeek]

Unless mom has a Klein Uterus.

Islamic law on surrogate mothers

[TeknoHog]

uterus transplants would be particularly useful in Saudi and other Muslim countries where using surrogate mothers is prohibited by Islamic law.

So it is forbidden to use someone else's womb to bear your child. Except when you take that womb and put it inside your own body.

Re:Islamic law on surrogate mothers

[elocinanna]

"Islamic law" doesn't have much to do with the faith or superstitions of Islam. Mistaking the traditions with the faith is a very harmful meme, and it's damaging not just to muslims. I see you've been modded down but (with the exception of the word "savages") the view you expressed is very common.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Hungus]

Physical degenerates: yes, moral degenerates: no.
Remember a few days (weeks) where it was pointed out that people were using ultrasounds to select for gender and so for the first time ever more boys were being born than girls?

Besides we have already sen what the eugenics wars will bring us ... KHANNNNNNNNNNNN!

Re:well ...

[mwvdlee]

It would be neither her daughter, son, sister nor brother?
Otherwise I don't understand what "no" applies to.

Re:well ...

[RichardJenkins]

I think that's pretty uncontroversially going to be son/daughter - not many people consider the provinance of the uterus a person develops in as an indicator of your parents.

A little more interesting would be the case if a woman acts as surrogate mother for a child conceived with a gamete from her daughter. It'd make for some fucked up sex ed. classes when the kid explains that their grandmother gave birth to them and their mother is their sister.

Re:well ...

[imsabbel]

Made the same mistake in my comment below, before looking up the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.

Scary part: Relevance 1 in 5000. Main symptom: no uterus _and_ no vagina.

Wikipedia has also the following insane story:
"In 1988, a teenager living in the small southern African nation of Lesotho came to local doctors with all the symptoms of a woman in labor. The doctors were puzzled, however, because she did not have a vagina, only a shallow skin dimple. Doctors traced her pregnancy to a knife wound to her abdomen 278 days earlier, after she had practiced fellatio on her boyfriend. The sperm had leaked from her stomach to her abdominal cavity and fertilized one of her eggs. This case was reported by Dr. Richard Paulson, head of the University of Southern California Fertility Program in Los Angeles, February 3, 2010.[3]"

Sounds just like something from House...

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[imsabbel]

As her sickness seems also to encompass "lack of vagina", I would assume that sperm donation would not encompass penis->vagina action.

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[MichaelSmith]

Keep in mind that in one sense you will actually be having sex with her mother. I wonder if that is going to put her partner off the idea?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Foobar of Borg]

So, you're saying that because the idea ran through her head, she must have given it proper thought.

Too bad she didn't just log into slashdot so she could get a more informed opinion.

Ah, the Internet! For all your important decisions!

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Roduku]

So, you're saying that the proper thought is the one that agrees with your line of thinking

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Always, there has been more boy babies then girl babies.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Hungus]

Actually it is the other way around, males are genetically more fragile and so more girls are born under normal circumstances than boys. This is also why male infant mortality from natural causes is higher.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Luckyo]

Orphans ARE societal rejects. You seem to put humanity on a pretty high pedestal. In reality we're still mostly animals driven by instincts. When woman gets an instinct to procreate, she isn't going to try to get someone else's child. She wants one that continues her genetic line.

That's what our second most power instinct is all about.

And orphans are simply a sign of a failed natural selection. Our society allows for those who can override their instincts with their intellect or simply cannot have children of their own no matter what and opt for next best thing to get one of their own. But most of them are still societal rejects for reasons of natural selection.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

That reminds me of all the times that people admittedly did not read the article, and somehow managed to use the phrase, "It makes sense that...". :^D

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

No, I'm implying that the article does not give enough information to conclusively say that she gave it enough thought. The context tends to imply that being able to experience childbirth is her greater priority, regardless of the ease/difficulty of adopting.

I have been absent minded lately, so if I have missed some details in the article, then please do share.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Maybe you should go and correct the wikipedia article, then? ;) Seriously, you are confusing the fact that females live longer with the birth rate. More boys than girls are born (about 105:100), but women live longer --- as I recall, about 7 years.

womb for improvement

[pensano]

From the spacetime topological perspective, would this make her the first human Klein bottle?

A movie script is now being written

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they will put it back into her mother

"The sisterhood of the traveling uterus"

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Penguinoflight]

"Commonly assumed" isn't exactly a statement of fact, and the wikipedia article avoided citing any source by avoiding stating it as fact. As anyone knows from high school biology the male gene is less likely to develop and so in fact the common assumption is that more females will be born.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Roduku]

From TFA:

Led by Dr. Mats Brännström, a team of surgeons at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden are giving Sara, now 25-years old, hope that she may one day fulfill her dream of giving birth to a baby.

Speaking with The Telegraph, she said, “It would mean the world to me for this to work and to have children. At the moment I am trying not to get my hopes up so that I am not disappointed. But we have also been thinking about adoption for a long time and if the transplant fails then we will try to adopt.”

The facts (not implications) are that she has given it a lot of thought and being able to experience childbirth is her greater priority. Obviously, she's thought about it at least since she was married and assuredly longer because she's known about her condition since she was a teenager. This is her chance, however marginal, to bring to realization her most hopeful dream.

How much more thought do you feel she needs to put into it to be enough? What you're implying is that until she comes to the same conclusion you have, her decision is wrong . What you're implying is that you're more qualified to make a decision concerning her life than she ever will be. She's made her decision between adoption and surgery. It's a decision that she -- and only she-- is qualified to make. Get over yourself because, like it or not, you don’t matter.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

That part is not enough information. She just says that she has been thinking about it for a long time.

At the end of the video, the mother is quoted as saying "to save our daughters from the pain and stress of infertility and give them the beautiful gift of pregnancy and motherhood".

Honestly, what have they been thinking about regarding adoption? For them, was it a question of adopting or not adopting, only if the transplant fails? Did they think in terms of having a child no matter what, and then choosing the operation first? How long is a long time? 1 month? 2 months?

Everything implies that giving birth is the first priority, and that she may not have given it the same thought.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

It is not obvious. Obviously, she is not married, and she has a boyfriend.

How long is a long time? 1 month? 2 months?

Every voice matters. If I speak out for the orphans, then who are you to criticize?

In the entire article, there is no discussion of the orphan's needs for a home and adopting parents.

I'm not saying that she absolutely needs to adopt. My former cousin [it's a long story] was adopted, and it caused a lot of problems. Giving birth to children must be a wonderful experience.

You're just arguing against straw men, and not really thinking about it fully. You thought that she had a husband.

I'm just saying that the article does not conclusively say that she has put enough thought into it. Rather, it just assumes.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Hungus]

I have been looking for specific data, I see from world census data that male infant mortality is ~20% higher than female, but I have not yet found a reliable source either way on actual birth rates before the advent of legalized abortion for the US. I know my old biology books (OK, clay tablets in Cuneiform) say that female birth rates are higher than males precisely for the reason I mentioned, genetic fragility, but it is not like they cited the sources well anyway. As for Wikipedia, heh I prefer secondary sources and historical fact.

What children?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I just had to point out how silly your suggestion was in light of these facts.

We, Norway and Denmark, don't offer our children to outsiders... Why would we? We're wealthy and stable nations.

Norway is even richer than Sweden, and we pay mothers a monthly stipend for each child until it reaches 18 years of age. Not to mention the lump sump of money given at birth ($9000) to help you get started. Oh, if you're a working mother the state offers paid maternity leave for 12-16 months, fathers are also offered paid paternal leave.

In a country where religion is irrelevant, college education is free, teenage pregnancy uncommon, welfare covers cradle-to-grave. Why would we have any children to offer foreigners? This is the same for Denmark as well. The UN however ranks Norway the best country to live in, in general, and specifically for mothers...

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Oh for crying out loud. Ok, here is a link to Denmarks statistics.. It will have darn near every birth in Denmark. It shows around 32K boys and 30K girls for the most recent year... or about 105:100. (Look at "tabel 3" (table 3), "1 dreng"="1 boy", "1 pige"="1 girl"... the remaining numbers of for twins and triplets and such).

Are you convinced yet? ;)

Untimely ripped...

[Courageous]

I propose a modification for MacBeth:

"I am not a man of a mother born! I was from my grandmother's womb untimely ripped!"

C//

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Roduku]

http://roduku.bravehost.com/

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Hungus]

No, one year does not give anything other than anecdotal evidence. Don't worry I will keep digging through census data as I have time.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Hungus]

Thanks for the link though, I will take a look at it.

Re:well ...

[FatLittleMonkey]

Sounds just like something from House...

Or Snopes.

Screw You Darwin! Evolution is Extinct!

[VortexCortex]

I think now would be a good time to begin archiving our important scientific and mathematic discoveries for the future sentient beings that may eventually take our place. Primates, I'm looking at you...

I am developing a language that any intelligent creature grasping basic mathematics should be able to decipher. Previous attempts seem sophomoric to me, and assume too much (low res. raster of a man, child and woman? Don't make me laugh).

In the stone and crystalline tablets we should denounce the perception of the knowledge as coming from a race of Gods, and to this end include the story of our great achievements in gene pool pollution.

Do you have a genetic defect? Welcome to the gene pool! We'll be happy to go through any lengths to ensure you can spread your corrupted genetic sequence on to other lifeforms -- Even if it means growing your offspring in another being, or transplanting wombs!

Natural Selection be damned; We'll do whatever it takes to not discriminate against your deformities in the bedroom.

Of course I would tone down the irony and describe the principals in simple genetic and mathematical terms for our successors. However, I assume my fellow Slashdoters -- being of the same culture and language -- can easily grasp the principals I have sarcastically alluded to above.

Re:well ...

[Rei]

The upper vagina, at least. The upper vagina and the uterus form from the Müllerian duct. The lower vagina forms from the urogenital sinus. The boundary between the two is the hymen.

Trivia: In men, the Mullerian duct degenerates to a tiny structure attached to the prostate and wrapped around the urethra, called the "prostatic utricle". It contracts during orgasm just the same as in women.

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[Rei]

You can get vaginal reconstruction to replace the upper vagina for intercourse.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[MBGMorden]

It's not likely the "giving birth" part that they're after. So many doctors opt for cesarean delivery at the drop of the pen that the "experience" of childbirth (if there ever was such a thing) is largely unattainable by many women.

I think the more likely reason is simple: when adopting, people tend to prefer to adopt BABIES. The earlier you get a child into your life the stronger the mutual attachment. While adopting a child might be easy, adopting a BABY is sometimes rather difficult.

Combine that with a simple fact that an adopted child is not your genetic offspring. The entire evolutionary drive towards reproduction is to propagate your DNA. It should come at no surprise that there is a preference for a child of your own rather than someone else's. That's a cold hard fact that many don't like to admit, but it's a simple truth.

I'm not in any way saying that this should be a taxpayer (or insurance) funded operation. It is completely elective IMHO, but I also CAN see why she'd want to have it done, and if she can afford it, then more power to her.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

Fair enough. I never claim to be open minded, because I never want to let myself off the hook.

That being said, I am quite confident that I did not break any of those 4 rules. I focused on the article and the video. If you can see otherwise, then let me know. I don't like to cheat. Be sure to cite sources, though.

In summary of my point: I can't claim that she did or did not think through adoption properly, but I do not think that it is fair to give her the benefit of the doubt, when we have the natural tendencies to not adopt. You know how hard it is to convince people to act altruistically. Many ideas labelled as altruistic can be bad for the greater good, and even when it is good, it costs us so much to do it. That being said, how we honestly assume that she thought through the issue properly?

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

It's ok, I can deliver in the rear or upper entrances.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[mug funky]

reproductive selection is not the only selection at play these days.

a "reject" could still contribute and further mankind, if given the chance, thanks to our amazing brains and ability to communicate.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[mug funky]

interestingly enough, in the case of my son, the ultrasound said "girl". don't know how they missed THAT, but it was a hell of a surprise.

the idea of having an abortion to favour one gender is a bit horrible IMHO. considering how far along they need to be for a scan to be able to reliably determine sex. my wife was born at just under 23 weeks, so we're a bit iffy about aborting at 20+ weeks (where the ultrasound happens). disclosure: i'm an atheist, and pro-choice.

Re:well ...

[roman_mir]

Doctors traced her pregnancy to a knife wound to her abdomen 278 days earlier, after she had practiced fellatio on her boyfriend. The sperm had leaked from her stomach to her abdominal cavity and fertilized one of her eggs.

- what you won't find in the report, is that the knife in question was extremely tiny, and it was wielded by the sperm, that reached the womb.

Witness accounts of the stomach, gullbladder, kidneys, guts and uterus in question were all similar, describing a tiny armed sperm, cutting its way through the organs to get to the desired destination. Cusses and yells about 'cocksuckers' and 'bitches' and 'do or die' were quite distinctly heard by these and other organs.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Luckyo]

Correct, which is why we have a concept of social security - something that no other species on the planet practices.

That doesn't change the fact that many, if not most of our actions are still guided by our instincts.

Meanwhile, 20,000 foster kids age out, yearly

[Sczi]

That's in the US alone! And this is part of why I am staunchly pro-choice.

Re:Screw You Darwin! Evolution is Extinct!

[wikdwarlock]

The counter argument, of course, is that other, more beneficial genetic information may be contained in otherwise non-optimal DNA sequences. Color blindness is genetic, and even dangerous for primitive Man who might eat a poison red berry mistakenly, but it's not fatal necessarily. If a color blind Neanderthal discovered fire and cooked his food and had a healthier family because of it, his intelligence/ingenuity was more valuable than the color blindness defect. A partial understanding of genetics leads people to believe that what THEY see as a hopelessly flawed DNA sequence (as expressed in an organism w/ one or more defects) has no value to the gene pool in general. Maybe such a defect is the precursor to a slightly tweaked evolution that boost immunity, metabolism, or any number of future things. Maybe it's just a pressure that helps other, unrelated mutations in later generations. The possibilities for any one mutation to be GOOD or BAD are too many to count, and too difficult to predict besides.

Without any judgment of the woman in TFA, perhaps she's got really great genes otherwise whose benefit more than makes up for a reproductive disorder. And, on top of that, perhaps the human evolutionary track is directed by more than just DNA now, and includes memes, culture, and macro scale things based on people and not DNA exclusively. Without being able to see the entire human race with resolution down the the individual A's, T's, C's and G's, you're wildly speculating at best, and being judgmental and self important at the worse.