SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "tomorrow"-give-or-take-nine-months dept.
Richard Paulson, President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, has said that transgender women could give birth as soon as "tomorrow" using donated wombs:
Those born with male assigned sex organs cannot conceive children biologically; however, this may soon change, at least according to one fertility expert. Transgender women—those who were assigned male at birth—could give birth as early as "tomorrow," Richard Paulson, an obstetrician-gynecologist and the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said, according to The Telegraph. Thanks to advances in transgender medicine, donated wombs may be able to help transgender women conceive on their own, Paulson said during the society's annual conference in San Antonio, Texas.
Since at least 1999, transgender men have successfully given birth to healthy children, The Washington Post [archive] reports. More recently, Trystan Reese, a transgender man and his partner Biff Chaplow, gave birth to a healthy child last August. Despite their successes, the process is much more complex for transgender women. Primarily because a man's pelvis is a different shape than a woman's, making the birth much more complicated. Still, Paulson insists that it's possible, but notes the birth must be conducted via cesarean section.
"There would be additional challenges, but I don't see any obvious problem that would preclude it," Paulson said. "I personally suspect there are going to be trans women who are going to want to have a uterus and will likely get the transplant."
Only eight children have been born worldwide to mothers (born female) who had a uterine transplant, with the first such birth occurring in 2014. As we have reported, the first attempted uterine transplant in the U.S. failed last year.
Here's a 2016 article on the topic at Scientific American, which notes that surrogacy (which can have its own problems) is illegal in some countries. The article raises the question of unnecessary risks to the patient, as well as unknown risks posed to the fetus by a "potentially unstable biological environment" modulated by hormone treatments.
Not mentioned: the prospect of creating an artificial embryo using the DNA of two biological men, which is expected to be possible imminently (predicted by researchers two years ago to be available in 2017). Since men have both an X and Y sex chromosome, they should be able to have either a son or a daughter using such a technique.
If an artificial womb is developed in the future and it has a lesser chance of causing complications than a traditional pregnancy, would it be unethical for a woman to conceive a child naturally? Fetal lambs have been grown for up to four weeks in an artificial womb, so we may get an answer in the coming decades.
Also at the Sacremento Bee.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday November 06 2017, @02:50PM (56 children)
Just because something is possible, doesn't make it sensible. Uterus transplant, heavy drugs to avoid rejection, pregnancy with the foetus exposed to those drugs, and at serious risk in case of rejection. What could go wrong?
The parent who would do this is (imho) placing their personal ego above the welfare of the child.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:04PM (37 children)
People that choose to give birth are also placing their ego above the welfare of all the orphan children waiting to be adopted. Pregnancy and giving birth are also not without risk.
The question is where should the moral line be drawn and should it be drawn by the parent or society? Society has a stake in the health of future people, so should there be threshold at a certain risk level(~10% chance of debilitating illness/defect?)?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @03:39PM (31 children)
People who choose to adopt, rather than have their own children, are cuckolds. Draw your own moral lines, it's not up to me to rescue some other couple's genetic mess. IF my wife and I were to do so, it is out of the kindness of our hearts, not due to some moral obligation that you have assigned us.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:42PM
Oh snap, someone dropped the C-bomb!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:45PM
Thank you for saving me from having to respond to the above asshat. What a clown he is, must make him feel like quite the moral busy-body, preaching his morality onto us through the tubes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:10PM (28 children)
I made no moral judgement - I simply drew a parallel.
If someone is willing to undergo a transplant and pay for the opportunity to have their own genetic child, then you are in favor?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @04:19PM (27 children)
"People that choose to give birth are also placing their ego above the welfare of all the orphan children"
It certainly looks like a moral judgement to me.
I won't bullshit you about my own moral judgements. I view this whole charade as an exercise in faggotry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:45PM (26 children)
Only if you believe that it is morally unacceptable to place higher value on your ego (desire to pass on your genetics) over that of orphan children.
I made no such assertion and, in fact, do not believe it is immoral. I might consider it a greater moral good, similar to how you described a "kindness" of the heart, to provide for someone else's genetic offspring but certainly not a moral obligation.
In your terms, is it more moral to be a participant in cuckoldry or faggotry?
Is it acceptable for those who want to have biological children, but are unable to do so without medical intervention, to go through extraordinary measures to do so rather than adopting?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @05:11PM (25 children)
You need do nothing actively "wrong" to be cuckolded. Faggotry requires active participation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:37PM (8 children)
Do you have a moral argument for why faggotry is wrong?
I've never heard any compelling arguments. Unfortunately, intelligent people who believe it is wrong typically only do so because of religion and, thus, their arguments rely on the premise that their religion is true (which I don't accept).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:59AM (7 children)
Sure, pretend like the basic facts of biology are just religious arguments. People make mistakes all the time. Some guy's ass is the wrong hole to fuck. Faggotry is wrong like trying to plug a male connector into a male port is wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:33PM (6 children)
The morality of "the wrong hole to fuck" is not a basic fact of biology. Some reasons why the "unnatural" argument is not compelling are:
Homosexuality is observed in nature.
It would be a joke to assert that humans should follow some "natural" standard when participating in a modern human society bears so little resemblance to any "natural" setting.
Evolution is a process that has no will, intentions, or personality and, therefore, has no moral concerns and species with greater variability typically have a more rubust survival rate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:16PM (5 children)
"Homosexuality is observed in nature."
You justify your actions with the fact that the beasts of the field to it. So - it's alright for you to attack your parents, when they grow old and weak, and eat them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:19PM (4 children)
It seems it's only male homosexuality you take issue with. I'm guessing you'd have less trouble watching, for example, me and my girlfriend making love, not that we'd ever let you.
This reveals several things, one of which is your incredibly male-centric idea of sexuality, to the point that it's borderline solipsistic. If you have a wife or a girlfriend I pity her intensely. Another, IMO, is an obvious undercurrent of homosexual urges in your own case.
A third is an extremely shallow set of morals and almost complete lack of moral thought. Empathy is also found in nature, in "the beasts of the field." We are animals, at least in the flesh, whether you like it or not. Does that mean a thing is good or bad solely because it exists in nature or does not? No, of course not. What the AC above you was saying isn't "there are gay animals therefore it's fine, QED," they're saying "Don't act like this is something humans invented or some deliberate, thought-out perversion of human nature."
You are a particularly shallow thinker and getting worse by the day; the last 4-6 months in particular are making me suspect you're either suffering something in your personal life that's affecting your thought processes or may actually have early-onset dementia.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:14AM (3 children)
And, once again, 'Zumi tosses out her ages old presumption that I am interested in her.
When will you learn, girl? There are a lot of fish in the ocean. I'm not much interested in crustaceans. And, you're not an interesting crustacean. No, I'm not coming over to watch the mating habits of - whatever it is you call yourself.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:09AM (2 children)
Way to miss the point again. This deflection of yours fools no one; based on your responses thus far it is now patently obvious you're at least bisexual and have been fighting a lifelong battle with yourself over it. Else why would you be getting so completely autistic-screeching upset over it? Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually WILL have apoplexy if I keep poking you and am debating simply ignoring you so as not to have your blood (or whatever that cholesterol-laden alcoholic sludge is...) on my hands.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:48PM (1 child)
Some shit is definitely beneath any man's dignity to even mess with. You've heard those loaded questions, such as "Is mine the sweetest peter you've ever tasted?" We simply aren't going into my sex life, no matter how curious you are, no matter how many times you ask.
Listen to the lyrics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T3g_DruhMc [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:15PM
Runaway confirmed for self-loathing bi/homosexual. I mean, you were before, but this is basically a giant flashing neon sign saying "CLOSET CASE" in giant 144pt Comic Sans...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @05:41PM (15 children)
Anyone getting this worked up over the idea has some experience, riiiiight? I mean, no one in their right mind would adopt you, but maybe you're insecure about your lust for other men...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06 2017, @06:21PM (14 children)
'Zumi, no need to go around with this again. You can't adopt me, and there is no point being bitter about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:15PM
The only reason for you to have the personality you do is a massive insecurity complex. Just admit you're at the least bisexual.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @08:26PM (12 children)
I could, I'd just need to fill out some state and federal forms about owning dangerous wildlife, and get one hell of a big terrarium :D Oh, and proper heat-lighting: do you like near or far infrared?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:18PM (11 children)
If you'll just take that infrared light out near Pluto, and hang it, it will be far enough to me. By the time you get back, I'll be safely in my grave.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:44PM (10 children)
By the time I get back you won't need the heat lamp, since it'll be plenty hot where you're going :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:57PM (9 children)
Thought you didn't believe in that shit any more.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:07PM (8 children)
You're not paying attention, are you? Hell is real. That is to say, there are as many Hells as there are people in them, and they last exactly as long and are exactly as horrible as they need to be. Most people in them have no idea what's happening to them and interpret it as something like whatever their dominant cultural paradigm's version of afterlife punishment says it is; what's really happening is a sort of karmic rebound.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:16AM (7 children)
So, kinda like Dante's Enferno? Cool. Have fun when you get there.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @05:05AM (6 children)
You can't even spell "Inferno" right, you dumb illiterate bastard. And it'll only be like that for you since you've been raised nominally Christian; I am probably not going to end up spending time in or below the "third sphere" based on my life thus far.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:57PM (5 children)
So, now she resorts to cursing . . . she's lost it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:12PM (4 children)
Unless you are in elementary school--and, let's face it, this is a distinct possibility given your mental capabilities--"bastard" isn't a curse. It's a perfectly cromulent word when describing, for example, large swords, low-value pearls, and petulant manchildren who can't hold their own on the internet because they're consumed by rage, self-loathing, and probably impotence as well :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:29PM (3 children)
Self loathing is the province of liberal white people. Try to get your descriptors right.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:51AM (2 children)
Keep tellin' yourself that, Runaway. It's obvious you wanna smoke more pole than an arsonist in a strip club.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
Let us remember which of us is "broken". You are fascinated with your fantasies of my anatomy, and you're fishing for some potential connection between us. Nope, we ain't hookin' up, under any circumstances. We aren't going to share tales of smoking poles, or whatever. The only thing that you and I have in common is, we like pussy. Run along, now, and apologize to your special other for hitting on me, repeatedly.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:33PM
I think I might have to actually start trolling you for real :) I didn't even read that post, just hit reply. If anyone can get a rise out of you this easily maybe it was meant to be. And man, are you easy to upset.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Monday November 06 2017, @03:41PM (4 children)
I understand that adoption is now somewhat of a rarity in the first world.
Question: assume that we are a traditionally average couple that can't have children of our own. We have a white picket fence with all the trimmings... what chance do we have of adopting a newborn child?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:28PM (3 children)
I couldn't find any stats on attempts verses successful adoption, but there were roughly 150,000 children adopted in the US last year while there are about 400,000 children in foster care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:22PM (2 children)
Disabled children, developmentally impaired children, ugly children, and discipline problems don't have a lot of takers. Not to mention, age works against all of them. The youngest, and prettiest, smartest, and most disciplined children get snatched up. No matter how desparate for children a couple might be, they don't want someone like Azumi, who has spent half of her life in Juvie hall.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 07 2017, @07:21PM (1 child)
I've never even been in a police station except to help point someone out of a lineup. Nice try, you bitter old man :D Keep it up! Feel the hate flow through you! With any luck you'll die of a painful stroke at age 45 on my account.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 08 2017, @03:10AM
Why don't you make us a nice little list of places you've never been. Everyone is really interested.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
It's already an act of ego to have a child. I will agree that it looks very risky, and should probably be considered a "waste" of donated uteri (if it is more likely to have complications than a woman getting it). But that could be a problem for "early adopters". Solving the problems involves carrying out the procedure and advancing medical science. Uteri could also be grown from scratch instead of donated or removed from cadavers.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Monday November 06 2017, @06:04PM
I would argue that you are reaching a bit, apparently to for the sake of justifying the said behavior. One could argue that sexual reproduction across the animal kingdom is an act of ego, but I don't think that is what is intended here by the word ego.
We start cutting parts of ourselves and gluing new ones, what is it that we are trying to perpetuate?
I may not be kind to ask and am willing to be corrected, but what is there to perpetuate if we are not contempt with what we are in the first place?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)
While you may have a point, what in the world does this have to do with snowflakes?
I thought this was a term created to describe those who get way too upset over things and/or don't take critisism well. Now it seems every time someone on the right doesn't like something a person does that person is a snowflake. It seems to me that would be a lot of hardship, pain, and money for a delicate snowflake to go through, even if the whole thing is ill-advised.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:40PM
Trannies are snowflakes by definition.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 06 2017, @03:12PM (12 children)
Well, let's make sure to apply this same logic to cisgendered women who do not have functioning wombs. Some doctors did a womb transplant once (too lazy to link, find it yourself), but never again! It's too risky! And actually, being somewhat serious, there really are too many people on this planet.
There again, my position has long been that according to the logic you folks and feminists use, cisgendered women should be forcefully transitioned to male and injected with testosterone if they do not give live birth to a child by, say, age 25. C-section doesn't count. Has to be a live birth, since that is how you determine whether somebody is really a woman.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @03:22PM
Reply to my comments, lol.
As noted in the summary, there have been successful uterine transplants and babies born as a result of those transplants. I think there was even a case where the baby was born and then the failing uterine tissue was removed afterwards (need to confirm). The failure of the transplant in the U.S. could be a result of "inexperience" or just reflective of the high complication rate the procedure has.
Global population estimates show population leveling off eventually. It has been argued however that 50+ year estimates are bullshit and that you should take any such estimates with a grain of salt after 25+ years. But predictions based on birth/death rates and other factors suggest that countries like Japan, South Korea, and China are going to see serious population declines in the future. China could decline to 800 million population for example. If they don't mess around with immigration, then those countries could see serious declines in national power and prestige that go along with the population loss. We like to fuss about there being too many people in the U.S. or the world, but at the end of the day a high population can be useful - particularly in war. So there you have it, three countries that should get on this technology right away. Maybe make a few super soldiers on the side.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:27PM
From the previous discussion on the transplant case, bradley13 said:
"Imho, this is an unethical medical procedure"
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=12589&cid=317054#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:42PM (6 children)
Only a snowflake insists on using "cisgendered" when referring to real men and women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:07PM (4 children)
Do you have a suggestion for a better technical term that doesn't invalidate the identity of some participants in the conversation? I suppose since you're a natural-born straight white male you are entitled to whatever opinion popped into your head first, but civil discourse relies on politeness and respect.
Invalidating others is rude. As Grandma used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:36PM
Why do we need a descriptor? Modifiers in English are used to distinguish things from the norm, thus the existence of the modifier "trans" from "transsexual".
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:00PM
I agree with GP. It's real, natural, or just men and women. You don't have to label it and thus make it a tautology. I'm sorry about your "feelings" but it is true and fact. Either it matters that these are the natural men and women OR NOTHING MATTERS. I fully understand that the goal of Cultural Marxism is the total destruction of everything that is found "problematic," but seriously fuck-off.
Trying to label the natural sexes with extraneous label is meant to somehow make them "equal" with whatever unnatural process someone else is undergoing to; but they are not nor will they ever be. Sorry for your feelings, but getting others to go along with your delusion will only work for so long, people who have decided for whatever reason to switch their gender identity deep down know that it will never magically change. There is and always will be a difference.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @07:33PM
1) Men
2) Women
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:28PM
As AC so eloquently put it - only the abnormal need special descriptors. Men and women don't need that silly "cisgendered", because we're all pretty much more or less "normal". When we need more precise descriptors, terms like blonde, short, skinny, dimwitted, and asshole work just fine. Cisgendered is meaningless.
Civil discourse, you say? Stop calling us names that we think are stupid, and maybe we'll call you "trannie" less often.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06 2017, @08:29PM
I'm cisgender and i like the term. It's precisely because it helps to have a word for the normal (read: most common) case because that stops certain kinds of bigotry from getting off the ground. The word has origins in chemistry, so it's not like it was invented out of thin air. We have, for example, cis and trans dichloroethylene, both C2H2CL2, but differing in where the chlorine atoms go.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday November 06 2017, @03:51PM
While your second paragraph is needlessly inflammatory, I completely agree with the first one. Uterus transplants are also inappropriate for cisgendered women.
For that matter, I submit that there is a more general problem with people who spend years and zillions of dollars on ever-more-extreme fertility treatments. Becoming utterly obsessed with one's (in)ability to have children - after a certain point, it's all about the parents and no longer about the (potential) kids. If someone is that obsessed, they may just be mentally ill: Psychiatric Illness and Infertility: Cause or Effect? [womensmentalhealth.org]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Monday November 06 2017, @07:00PM (1 child)
Perhaps at some point you had a conversation you are discontent with, but it is no excuse to project the position of a few to everybody else in a group to suit your argument.
My position is that you can disagree with someone, but no one gets to force anything on anybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:30PM
Heh. I farted, and you can't escape it. You will be forced to smell it once it permeates through the 'net.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:00AM
> What could go wrong?
FOETAL ERROR: BABY IS ALIVE AND WELL.
FURTHER INFO: NOW HE HAS TO GROW UP WITH A PARENT WHO THINKS TRANSPLANTING AN UTERUS TO HAVE A BABY IS TOTALLY WORTH IT.
MITIGATION: CALL CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
MITIGATION (CONTINUED): ON SECOND THOUGHT, DON'T.
Account abandoned.