World-First: Woman Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World-First: Woman Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 2, 2013 @08:30AM from the cabbage-patch dept.

brindafella writes "When an Australian woman, Vali, was diagnosed with cancer, and treated, she was not looking at a good outcome. Yet, TWO cancer treatments later, she is pregnant with twin girls. Her ovaries were sectioned and frozen before the cancer treatment. She has had her own flesh implanted outside her pelvis. Eggs were gathered, IVF techniques used later with her male partner, and her uterus is now carrying two viable girls due to be born in about 3 months. Melbourne IVF's Associate Professor Kate Stern has explained the process today."

58 of 87 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good and bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is good that science saved her and empowered her to have children. There is no denying that this is a win.
It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment.
This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad. Future generations will be looking at dating pools full of people with genetic predispositions for all kinds of expensive and life-threatening diseases. We are actively creating this future, which is unfortunate. However, any means of getting in front of this problem and ensuring the genetic health of future generations is either ruthlessly incompassionate or frighteningly mad-scientisty (or both).
1. Re:Good and bad. by lnunes · 2013-09-02 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is a Star Trek: TNG episode where LaForge gets stranded in a planet with a romulan, which says to him that should he have been born a romulan he would never be allowed to develop/grow up, due to having his genetic defect in his eyes.
  The logic behind was very similar to yours. I found it cruel when I watched it, and I still do, but it's hard to deny the benefits to society.
2. Re:Good and bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  God forbid that our science and technology help people achieve something that is denied to them because of a genetic problem. Maybe we've already arrived at your 'future generations' problem.
  Perhaps we should do away with hospitals and let the survival of the fittest rule once again?
3. Re:Good and bad. by mpeskett · 2013-09-02 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  Look at the right period in history, and myopia would have been a serious impairment. Guess we'd have been better of not inventing glasses, and not allowing the short-sighted to breed.
4. Re:Good and bad. by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-02 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Well here is the thing. It would of happened in nature anyway, if he was born as any other animal he would of died young. If humans were still living as we were when we first came onto the planet, he would of.
  "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
5. Re:Good and bad. by Jmc23 · 2013-09-02 09:29 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Except that myopia is easily corrected through learning how to use your eyes. Glasses were originally meant as a tool, not the modern crutch that leads to a billion dollar business.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
6. Re:Good and bad. by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't believe I'm defending ST:TNG, but the whole point of that episode is that LaForge, despite his birth defect, was still one of the most, if not the most competent non-android on The Enterprise. Sure, his visor allowed him to see, so technology bridged the gap (and then some, frankly I couldn't figure out why everyone in the Federation wasn't using them), but LaForge was a highly intelligent man. His blindness didn't make him less intelligent.
  My great-grandmother was totally blind from about the age of nine. She lived to be in her early 90s, lead a pretty amazing life, not to mention being one of my sires (which I'm very grateful for). She didn't super-duper technobabble glasses, but she had ropes strung around her yard to guide her along along with other ingenious aids that allowed her to function, and lived on her own for six or seven years after her second husband died until about six months before she died. She cooked, she cleaned and raised two children. She was also an incredible musician who could play just about any damned instrument; violin, concertina, guitar, piano, recorder. I feel very lucky that I got to know her.
  The one thing I learned from all of this is that you cannot tell what a person, even with some fairly substantial disability will be capable of. I don't want to live in the kind of society that would have viewed that woman as a burden.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Good and bad. by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:34 · Score: 2
  
  The thing is that we have evidence that even Neandertals looked after their sick. Sure there were some societies like the Spartans who used eugenics of some kind to strengthen the master race, but even in the Classical world they were viewed with a measure of fear and loathing (and ultimately it didn't help them when the Romans came rolling into town).
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Good and bad. by godel_56 · 2013-09-02 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  It is good that science saved her and empowered her to have children. There is no denying that this is a win.
  It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment.
  Who said she must have had genetic dispositions to cancer? Sometime shit just happens. Outside of a Larry Niven novel I don't believe in a "lucky" gene, but people win the lottery every week.
  
  This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad. Future generations will be looking at dating pools full of people with genetic predispositions for all kinds of expensive and life-threatening diseases. We are actively creating this future, which is unfortunate. However, any means of getting in front of this problem and ensuring the genetic health of future generations is either ruthlessly in-compassionate or frighteningly mad-scientisty (or both).
  Nah, it's just expensive. I don't regard a ball of maybe 32 cells and no nervous system, is fully qualified as a human being, entitled to my consideration. BTW, what's the percentage of early term pregnancies that spontaneously miscarriage anyway?
  Wikipedia says: "The National Institutes of Health report that "around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
  But if you're worried about the growing unfitness of the human race, I'm expecting a massive cull happening during the environmental collapse that's coming in the later part of this century will sort things out.
9. Re:Good and bad. by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm quite myopic due to astigmatism (I have misshapen eyeballs, which also have me at a much higher risk of detached retinas). There is no using my eyes another way. Before the invention of corrective lenses, I would have been functionally blind beyond perhaps 36 to 48 inches. There's no fix, no magic eyeball situps. I have no idea what you've read, but it ain't reality.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:Good and bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nature has also provided us biological tools that enable us to resolve these problems for ourselves. To suggest we should not because it's "not how nature works" is to deny our natural abilities.
11. Re:Good and bad. by Zordak · 2013-09-02 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment. This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad.
  
  Unless one of the twins comes up with the cure for cancer. Or solves the Grand Unified Field Theory. Or spends her life traveling the world feeding starving orphans. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "clearly."
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
12. Re:Good and bad. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-02 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  My great-grandmother was totally blind from about the age of nine. She lived to be in her early 90s, lead a pretty amazing life, not to mention being one of my sires (which I'm very grateful for).
  Technology is really out of control if your great-grandmother sired you. Even if she was your dam, that's still pretty wrong. Sire is your direct father. Dam is your mother. Damsire is your mother's father. Your great-grandmother shouldn't be any of these. You only have one sire.
13. Re:Good and bad. by Prune · 2013-09-02 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  You can have your pie and eat it too: genetic screening of embryos.
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
14. Re:Good and bad. by Prune · 2013-09-02 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you. This sort of treatment should be given only conditional to mandatory submission to genetic screening of embryos.
  
  --
  "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
15. Re:Good and bad. by misexistentialist · 2013-09-02 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Would you still be grateful if you went blind when you were 9 too?
16. Re:Good and bad. by Jmc23 · 2013-09-02 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've been reading scientific studies, some as far back as a century ago. You have probably only been listening to doctors or opthamologists with outdated knowledge and a vested interest in keeping you coming back for more. Those are the doctors that said I would be blind by the time I reached my 30's. Almost 40 now.
  Have you ever disected eyeballs? They don't really hold their shape. Shape is determined by the cavity, muscles, and production and drainage of fluid.
  Astigmatism is a little harder to correct since there's more imbalance of the muscles so it's less about degree of tension and more about proper co-ordination of muscles. I have to admit that while I've been able to correct my eyesight enough to see without glasses for the past 7 years, it's only been this last year that I've been able to get rid of flares and double/treble/quad.etc images from the astigmatism at night.
  Investigate it yourself if you really care about your health. Of course, most people don't care about taking responsability for themselves.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
17. Re:Good and bad. by Truekaiser · 2013-09-02 11:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Acknowledging a fact, and advocating for it are two different things. I hope one day you realize the difference.
  I Acknowledge that from 100,000 years ago to roughly 10,000 years ago being born blind or with any such handicap was a death sentence. If not by nature then by fellow tribesmen who can't afford to take on an extra burden of someone who can't do anything.
  I Acknowledge that from about 10,000 years ago to only 200 or so years ago, being born with a handicap entitled you to a short life at worst. At best depending on your class, creed, and culture you might live a semi productive life.
  We have the tools now to overcome our limitations, but those won't last long. How long is up to debate.
  So I Acknowledge the fact that without those tools we will be back to viewing those things as burdens.
  Yet with them a handicapped person, baring prevention by class and creed, can live a full productive life.
  Do I advocate for those things to happen? No, I do admit that these facts exist.
  I admit that while wrong to anthromorphize nature by saying nature doesn't care, but it is the best way to describe it.
18. Re:Good and bad. by Macgrrl · 2013-09-02 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Many people are reproducing without IVF intervention who would not have survived to do so in earlier times, either because they were born prematurely, would have died of a childhood illness or any number of other factors. Many cancers that appear are a result of surviving long enough for them to exhibit, where previously you would have died of something else before the cancer popped up it's ugly head.
  The majority of cancer sufferers are diagnosed will after they hit puberty, meaning they can reproduce and pass on the genes long before they know they will be hit.
  Mean while, science is getting better at identifying and treating cancer earlier and with less impact. I say this as someone who was treated for cancer earlier this year and hasn't as yet (touch wood) needed chemo because of how early it was caught.
  
  --
  Sara
  Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
19. Re: Good and bad. by sumdumass · 2013-09-02 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't anthropomorphanizing nature in that. Nature doesn't have feelings so it litterally doesn't care. Other then that, i agree
20. Re: Good and bad. by sumdumass · 2013-09-02 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Some people look at a pile of lemons and decide to make lemonade. Would you be gratefull if you could live from age nine until eighty something with a disability or would you prefere death?
21. Re:Good and bad. by blackest_k · 2013-09-02 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible that the problem with your eyes was inherited from your great grandmother, i'm guessing the whys of why she was blind from age 9 would have not been asked much once it was established that she would have to live with it. So it's unlikely to know if the 2 issues are related or coincidental .
  My parents both need glasses but both me and my brother have better than 20/20 vision although my sister has needed glasses most of her life. Which kind of demonstrates the foolishness of the idea of terminating a gene line for the sake of some idea of genetic purity.
  myself I only hope we can keep the mix flowing and we can evolve beyond the tribal values our society seems to hold on to. Seems that we are all share common ancestors but we still generally manage to dehumanise people from outside of our national boundaries. I accept the fact I am of mixed race although the races are largely a mix of Irish , English, Scots , Welsh and French that I know of. Many American families are also mixed race having in general European ancestors.
  There is no degree of certainty that the twins that are to be welcomed into this world will suffer with cancer especially since half their genes is from the father.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
22. Re:Good and bad. by dbIII · 2013-09-02 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you are a Tasmanian Devil and go around biting others on the face you don't have to worry about cancer being contagious. Also there are only a few cancers that have been identified as being more likely to affect some people and not others, this is not one of them, so your comment about passing on a predispositions to cancer does not appear to have any foundation in this situation. Also go back far enough or wide enough and everyone has a family history of cancer - there are plenty of different types and plenty of causes.
23. Re:Good and bad. by rpstrong · 2013-09-03 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, his visor allowed him to see, so technology bridged the gap (and then some, frankly I couldn't figure out why everyone in the Federation wasn't using them),...
  I was only an irregular viewer, but I was under the impression that using the visor caused severe headaches - and that he would take it off when he could.
24. Re:Good and bad. by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  I Acknowledge that from 100,000 years ago to roughly 100 years from now being born [DELETE: blind or with any such handicap] has been a death sentence.
  FTFY
  Life can be accurately described as a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality. It may not be a confidence-inspiring description, but it is accurate.
  The existence of IVF techniques is the first significant modification to matters, and that still depends on most of the apparatus of sex (reduction division of genomes to form gametes ; combination of gametes to form a zygote ; development of the zygote). There is progress on treating the disease of "aging", but we've been working on it for less than 1000th of the duration of our species, so it's less than astonishing that we've made little progress.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
25. Re:Good and bad. by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe I'm defending ST:TNG,
  Neither can I, and I have only sat through a few episodes when that's what other people have been watching in the smoking room.
  
  but the whole point of that episode is that LaForge, despite his birth defect, [yadda, yadda] but LaForge was a highly intelligent man. His blindness didn't make him less intelligent.
  I thought that the point of that episode, of which I only saw a few minutes of before going into my book then finishing my fag and going back to work, was that LaForge (is that the character, or the actor? Meh.) was fitted with the visor [unique prototype?] as an infant, long before his potentials were realised.
  So that's another lose for state-provided universal healthcare. It must be such an un-appealing idea for Hollywood to refer to it so often as if it were a good thing. Isn't it good that the land of Hollywood has 40% of it's population without healthcare provision, to protect them from being communists.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
26. Re:Good and bad. by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there were some societies like the Spartans who used eugenics of some kind to strengthen the master race,
  ... and they suffered the population problems that went with it. The Spartans proper were outnumbered around 100 to 1 by their slave workforce, the helots. Towards the end of the Hellenistic period the ratio may have been worse.
  
  (and ultimately it didn't help them when the Romans came rolling into town).
  It was Phillip of Macedon (father of Alexander, called "the Great") who came rolling in and effectively wiped the Spartans off the map. I don't think that he exterminated them, but I don't recall them being a significant force after that, and their lauded military prowess didn't do anything of note against the Macedonian phalanges.
  Several hundred years later, the Romans came to town.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
27. Re:Good and bad. by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Outside of a Larry Niven novel I don't believe in a "lucky" gene, but different people win the lottery every week.
  FTFY
  It is an important point in the novels. But also ... look at what ultimately happened to her.
  
  But if you're worried about the growing unfitness of the human race, I'm expecting a massive cull happening during the environmental collapse that's coming in the later part of this century will sort things out.
  Doesn't worry me ; I've not put any cards in that deck. Deliberately.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
28. Re:Good and bad. by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you are a Tasmanian Devil and go around biting others on the face you don't have to worry about cancer being contagious.
  HPV? (Human PapillomaVirus)
  (And there are probably others, if less clearly associated with cancers.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
29. Re: Good and bad. by sumdumass · 2013-09-06 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Any disability. You can't have emotion when you are dead.
swim from cuba to US by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-02 09:00 · Score: 1

why are we talking about this when we should be talking about the woman who was the first person to swim from cuba to US? 52 hours and she's 64 years old!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/sports/nyad-completes-cuba-to-florida-swim.html?hp
1. Re:swim from cuba to US by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-02 09:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  but grandma Nyad proves that you're never too old to be an attention whore
  The Internet is the beast with a million assholes.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:swim from cuba to US by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-02 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Susie Maroney already did it in half the time. Granted, she used a shark cage that made it much less dangerous and not as cool an accomplishment.
  it's like tightwalking with a net or without a net. which one is cooler?
3. Re:swim from cuba to US by misexistentialist · 2013-09-03 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Nyad had boats around her deploying some sort of electrical shark barrier, and unfortunately Castro did not think it was the right time to reveal his fleet of laser-equipped sharks
4. Re:swim from cuba to US by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-03 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  she also had to deal with stinging box jellyfish that stung her face and hands. have you ever done anything like this? i dont think so so stfu unless you can demonstrate some personal initiative.
5. Re:swim from cuba to US by OakDragon · 2013-09-03 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  why are we talking about this when we should be talking about the woman who was the first person to swim from cuba to US? 52 hours and she's 64 years old!
  That's slower than 1 hour per year!
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
Wacky Australia... by rts008 · 2013-09-02 09:01 · Score: 1

She has had her own flesh implanted outside her pelvis.

So, she is now like a kangaroo, with a pouch?
What's next? Cloning drop bears?!?!?

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
1. Re:Wacky Australia... by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  What's next? Cloning drop bears?!?!?
  Is that some kind of man-in-the-middle attack on SSH?
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
2. Re:Wacky Australia... by X0563511 · 2013-09-03 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is not.
  If you're resistant to clicking the link, it's a funny nickname for koalas, implying that they are (as a joke, because they are not) vicious horror-movie terrors that ambush unsuspecting tourists by dropping on to them from the canopy.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by negRo_slim · 2013-09-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Exactly. A giant middle finger to society and the world-at-large all in the name of ME-FIRST.

--
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:23 · Score: 1

Have some pity on your mother.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by MightyMartian · 2013-09-02 09:24 · Score: 1

They probably aren't closet Nazis masturbating to Stormfront literature.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Cool, but . . . by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-02 09:30 · Score: 1

This is a pretty interesting development, but I'll be a lot more impressed when I read the headline: "World-First: Man Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft"

--
I am not a crackpot.
1. Re:Cool, but . . . by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  The first part has happened. Twice for one guy, IIRC.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by nospam007 · 2013-09-02 09:35 · Score: 1

"Especially ones from diseased genetic stock. WTF were they thinking?"
It's nice to be rich.
I realize this is Australia by HangingChad · 2013-09-02 09:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

In the U.S. if we can deny using federal funds for abortion, we should also have the right to demand they not be used for fertility treatments.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I was flabbergasted at first by jonr · 2013-09-02 10:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

I thought she had become pregnant by accident, that hers or the donators eggs had somehow be fertilized....
Heroic effort vs adoption. by RightSaidFred99 · 2013-09-02 11:38 · Score: 1

We as a society should not pay for heroic efforts to restore fertility. There are a lot of kids suffering out there with no or with shitty evil parents.
1. Re:Heroic effort vs adoption. by RightSaidFred99 · 2013-09-03 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  We're at a point where culture and upbringing will have a far greater impact on humanity's future than evolutionary pressures.
  And who, exactly, do you think it is that is breeding like rabbits? Hint: It's not well educated middle class or above people.
Re:Frankenovaries by iggymanz · 2013-09-02 11:39 · Score: 2

pure nonsense, you have bought into the agenda of the mankind-haters. The truth is prosperity lowers the birth rate, the birth rate for those of european descent in the USA is below the rate needed to sustain a growing population. The 2nd derivative of the population growth curve shows the world population will peak in the 2070s around 8.5 billion people then decline. There is thus no problem with babies being born, and even the resource scarcity arguments assume that metals and whatnot disappear from the planet after first use. The crust of the earth is 20 miles thick, no shortage of anything. Of course, if you or like minded people really are so bent out of shape over so many human lives, feel free to off yourself. Take a load of 00 buck in the face for the team.
Re:Seems like a lot of costly work... by godel_56 · 2013-09-02 12:27 · Score: 1

...when you could just freeze some eggs and sperm for a surrogate, no?
She was in her early twenties when she got cancer, no life partner as yet acquired.
Also giving her hormone treatment to make her hyper-ovulate in order to collect her eggs for IVF might have accelerated the growth of her cancer.
Re:Seems like a lot of costly work... by Macgrrl · 2013-09-02 14:11 · Score: 1

In Australia you cannot get Medicare funding for a pregnancy where a surrogate or donor eggs are used afaik. This is based on information I was given while trying IVF a few years ago, and from a friend who was having to use a surrogate. They ended up using a surrogate from Thailand because the parental rights laws in Australia are tricky and you can't contract for a surrogate.

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by Macgrrl · 2013-09-02 14:15 · Score: 1

What's your idea of diseased genetic stock? Everyone has to die of something, very few humans will die of old age without having suffered from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or some other health related issue first which has at least some genetic predisposition factors involved.

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
You did not even read it. by brindafella · 2013-09-03 02:00 · Score: 1

Oh, no. I posted this so that people like you could READ it, and make sensible comments.
To make it easier, get REAL CLOSE to the screen, so the letters are bigger.
Her ovaries were REMOVED, SECTIONED (cut into slices) and FROZEN. AFTERher cancer treatments, the SLICES were RE-IMPLANTED in her ABDOMEN (the part behind the BELLY-BUTTON) and, with FURTHER TREATMENT, then the ovary cells RE-ACTIVATED. EGGS were REMOVED AND FERTILISED, and were IMPLANTED in her WOMB. She has TWO BABIES growing inside her, now.
Now, go and read the longer version, at the links. There is also video, if you can't be bothered reading any more.

--
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
I was flabbergasted by brindafella · 2013-09-03 02:05 · Score: 2

There was a time when Slashdot was for people to bring interesting and informative things, or to ask good questions and get good advice. (That is why I bothered to submit this report of a world-first procedure.)
And, then people like you came along.
READ what the story is about; watch and listen to the video.

--
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by DrStoooopid · 2013-09-03 04:53 · Score: 1

So you reserve the right to say who should and shouldn't be a parent? Simply based on a population number? ...and I'm sure you're probably in the same group of people that say if we require birth-control for foodstamp and welfare recipients is wrong?

Obviously she WANTS to be a parent, unlike the whores that go out and get knocked up because they were being stupid bitches, and then have their baby-cannon scraped "Because I'm not ready for a baby"....well then YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FUCKING WITHOUT BIRTH-CONTROL, idiot...and then bitch about not being able to have kids later. Well no shit you can't have kids, your uterus looks like it was cleaned with a cheese grater.

You can't punish one group who want to be good parents, when you have another, less-intelligent group, who are knockin' out babies like it's a hobby and raise little animals that dont' know how to behave.

--
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Re:IVF by rpstrong · 2013-09-03 13:50 · Score: 1

What, is true romance truly dead? I prefer to think that she would have taken matters in hand.
Re:A Fetus Holocaust by RockDoctor · 2013-09-03 15:00 · Score: 1

Just kidding. I don't have a problem with in vitro fertilization.
I just want to make sure that when whores fuck, they are punished with a child for the rest of their lives.
. . . An then you want them to die, to atone for your sins. FOAD

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"