Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Infertile Daughter To Receive Uterus From Mother

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the tenant-turned-landlady dept.

Medicine 358

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."

cancel ×

358 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And they do that with socialized medicine! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488786)

Flame on.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine! (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488916)

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

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine! (1)

tpotus (1856224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489052)

As in "please choose between fertility and infertility"?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine! (4, Insightful)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489072)

How about choosing adoption?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489452)

^ This comment is Insightful.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine! (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489542)

Choice person has to make choice ;)

well ... (0, Redundant)

JazzyMusicMan (1012801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488790)

might as well get this question out of the way ... if she has a baby, technically, would it be her daughter/son or sister/brother?

Re:well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488802)

first thing I thought of as well.. bring on the clones and call her a queen.

Re:well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488814)

I imagine that if the transplant recipient is still able to produce eggs then it will be her son/ daughter but if the mother is also donating eggs then it will be her half brother/sister.

Re:well ... (5, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488818)

Uterus != ovaries, so no.

Not really so rare (5, Funny)

sackvillian (1476885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488796)

Many children inherit their childhood home.

interesting angle (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488798)

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 (0)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488838)

If mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway

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

Re:interesting angle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488936)

Most older women would gladly give up part of their orgasms in exchange for grandchildren.

Re:interesting angle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489288)

Are you insinuating you know this from experience, or are you just taking a shot in the dark here?

Re:interesting angle (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489302)

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

You're thinking of oxytocin [wikimedia.org] , 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 (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488846)

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 (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488912)

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 (2)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488930)

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 (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489096)

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 (3, Interesting)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489124)

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 (3, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489152)

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

Re:interesting angle (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489162)

"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 [wikipedia.org]

Bert

Re:interesting angle (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489418)

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!"

hillbilly redux (0, Redundant)

capoccia (312092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488808)

i am my own grandma?

Thanks mom! (0)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488810)

Talk about the gift that keeps on giving!

Responsible? (5, Insightful)

steevven1 (1045978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488836)

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? (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488858)

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? (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488966)

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? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488868)

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

Re:Responsible? (1)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488920)

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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488940)

Surrogate mothers are not allowed in Sweden.

Re:Responsible? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489352)

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

Re:Responsible? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488894)

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? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488958)

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? (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489082)

Mod parent up please.

Re:Responsible? (1, Flamebait)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488984)

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? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489062)

Worst. Parallels. Ever.

Seriously.

Re:Responsible? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489112)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489284)

poor defense for worst parallels ever

the lonely pangs of hormone-addled 'many women on this planet' don't constitute quality of life

Re:Responsible? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489294)

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?

Adopt? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489104)

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:Adopt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489330)

Your main reason to have children is to pass on your DNA? Seems kinda selfish with delusions of grandeur, to me. We evolved to have a large frontal lobe -- isn't it about time we made use of it?

Re:Responsible? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489450)

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? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488978)

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? (3, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489022)

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? (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489048)

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

Re:Responsible? (2)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489092)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489412)

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.

Re:Responsible? (-1, Troll)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489546)

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.

Well I don't know why you're still wasting my air by breathing it. Stop, please.

Re:Responsible? (3, Insightful)

EdgeCreeper (1618161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489560)

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? (2, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489556)

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 [worldbank.org] . One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.

FRANKENSTEIN! (1)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488872)


This sort of unnecessary medical procedure is why we're such a sick lot.

Silly surgeries, excess anti-biotic prescriptions, pills for every ache and pain.

I would easily put $10K on the fact that if this woman was having problems conceiving that proper chiropractic adjustments would help her! Don't take my word for this, look on YouTube for "Chiropractic fertility" and see what I mean. Many of those videos have a lot of thumbs up, that's like Peer Review for chiros.

But no, pump her full of drugs and make her a female FRANKENSTEIN! Can't wait to see the subluxations she develops.

Take care,
Bob.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488934)

I'd take that bet. Easiest $10k I expect I'd ever make.

Fucking idiot.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (2)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488994)

Right. Chiropractic adjustments will make her grow a uterus.

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

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489034)

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

It posts in every slashdot story about how chiropractics will fix the situation, be it medical, electronic, nuclear, or even ask slashdots.

Check out it's posting history, it's pretty hilarious.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (1)

raedeon (1246638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489216)

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

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489436)

I like how he tries squeeze "subluxations" into just about every post. I'm waiting for the spam advertising for the next wonder drug that helps "heal your subluxations."

Re:FRANKENSTEIN! (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489572)

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.

UTERUS (1)

raedeon (1246638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489446)

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

Ewww (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36488874)

TOO MUCH INFORMATION!

I have a MUCH easier solution. (2, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36488946)

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. (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489016)

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. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489074)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489198)

He's saying that people with known genetic diseases shouldn't get kids, not that they shouldn't get treatment.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489208)

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. (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489442)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489570)

I don't know if you're retarded or just stupid, but if everyone with a genetic disease doesn't have children, then after one generation those genes will be completely out of the gene pool. If on the contrary people with a genetic disease have children, then the genes will stay in the gene pool.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489050)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489106)

I guess most people still think reproducing is one of life's 'miracles'. I'm not one of those people. Everyone does it. Homeless people can have kids. Rich people can have kids. Why does this person NEED to have a kid of their own so much they are risking their own life to do it?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489252)

From someone who doesn't have children.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489420)

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

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489530)

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

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489116)

"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 that's not analogous.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489148)

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. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489256)

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. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489332)

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. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489348)

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. (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489440)

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. (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489406)

Since when is having children a need?

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489144)

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. (1)

nido (102070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489490)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489538)

you need to be rising kids much younger at 8-10 they are legally 1/2 way through childhood, and i say i probably ended before then for kids w/ unstable/bad/dirt poor parents

start at 5 or 6 and id guess they would have turned out capable, just not model citizens (even im not and i only have a handful of family issues)

-monkyyy. anon to not undo moderation

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489220)

She's selfish because she risks herself in a way that furthers our scientific knowledge of ourselves. Mmkay.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489342)

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

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489428)

Of course some things should stand in the way; ethics, for example. I'm not sure that self-righteous indignation from people utterly unrelated to the procedure should be one of those things, though.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution. (-1, Flamebait)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489532)

Fucking adopt. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to xerox as exact a copy of yourself

Wait, if we're selfish, what the hell do you call the "parents" of most of these orphans?
If you think there's something wrong with a couple having their OWN child, you're a fucking moron.

If your going to tell anyone to not have kids, look at the demographics that are orphan factories, not _everyone else_.

Takes a look at photo from the article ... (0)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489004)

Well, if she also needs some sperm donors, I'll gladly deliver it directly to her uterus (after it's been transplanted, of course).

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ... (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489214)

Delivery in 15 seconds or less, guaranteed.

Sick (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489006)

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

So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into.... (4, Funny)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489076)

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

Re:So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489482)

Why "flamebait?" I got the same reaction. And I'd be surprised if the woman's husband/mate's penis doesn't implode at that thought.

On another note, why can't people just adopt in these situations?

How cool would it be... (1)

middlerun (1702904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489224)

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

Re:How cool would it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489318)

So it's like a genetic phylactory?

well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489366)

i suppose that gives new meaning to "hand-me-down" [/badumpssh]

egotistical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489408)

What's wrong with this fscking Planet? People can't adopt for the greater good anymore?

The same uterus... (1)

LavouraArcaica (2012798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489470)

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

recursion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489514)

recursion?

I get it now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489528)

/. is getting most of it's submissions off Yahoo or Google news. That's just sad, considering they are normally a day late or so.

Whats wrong with you people? (2)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489544)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>