Missing pregnant Shanann Watts and her two daughter's bodies found, husband arrested
Join the latest discussion

Temporary Womb Transplants?

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Linda7NJ, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
  2. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
  3. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I find it appalling when there are so many children here already and in need of a loving home.

    I find it incredibly selfish and I believe it should be illegal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It is certainly controversial, and has been since the beginning. Many wonder if it is ethical to do a transplant for a non-life threatening condition, given the risks to the woman, as well as any potential child she might conceive. Anti rejection drugs, mandatory gravid hysterectomy at delivery, etc.

    It may seem incredibly selfish, but the biological and psychological drive to become pregnant and produce a baby is immensely strong in some women. It may seem irrational, but it exists. And there are always docs and scientists who are willing to delve into those situations. Look at the entire assisted reproductive technology field! Look at how much effort and money people are willing to spend to make a pregnancy happen.
     
  5. jjenny

    jjenny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    26,072
    Likes Received:
    1,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not hire a surrogate instead? Seems like it might be cheaper and less unhealthy.
     
  6. K_Z

    K_Z Verified Anesthetist

    Messages:
    6,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    ART isn't about solving any social, cultural, or economic problems, IMO. The entire industry isn't about what is logical, ethical, easier, or possible (reference Nadya Sulemon and her situation).

    Of course it would be "cheaper and less unhealthy" to hire a surrogate. The ART industry isn't about problem solving family building thru means other than ART. The industry is all about ART as the primary plan to solve family building when there is infertility.

    The production of the CHILD is secondary emotionally for some individuals, to the primary goal of having the experience of being pregnant, and personally producing the child. Giving life. Being "the vessel". Passing on "my" DNA. Being essential in the formation of this new person. Etc. For some (ok, many) women, the ACT of becoming, and being pregnant, and giving birth (even high tech birth) is a strongly needed validation of their femininity. It is an important part of their view of themselves, and their self esteem. It is also a big aspect of culture and faith for some people.

    The ART industry, IMO, isn't about creating children for the SAKE of the children, or for humankind, as much as it is about nurturing the psyche of those that they "help". JMO.

    And ART is predominantly for (relatively) wealthy people in highly industrialized nations. It isn't a "need" for the continuing sake of mankind-- it's a "want". For me, it's in a category like purely elective cosmetic surgery, IMO. If you want it, and have it available where you live, and can afford it, you can have it.
     
  7. kincaid

    kincaid New Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People who talk about all these children in need of homes haven't tried to adopt. The days of easily being able to adopt a healthy newborn are long gone. Not every person has the ability to adopt the kind of children needing homes from the foster care system now.

    IMO, this is far better than the kind of adoption we have now where biological father's rights are ignored and foster parents hoping to adopt are routing against the bioparent(s) re-gaining custody. With the adoption triad, people are realizing that the children being adopted already have parents and a family that cannot be replaced by receiving a new birth certificate. More biological parents keeping their own children would be a win for everyone. Not more adoption.
     
  8. T4Tide

    T4Tide Verified Registered Nurse

    Messages:
    2,187
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As a mother of four with a new life growing inside me right now, I simply cannot judge the heart of a mother who simply wants to bear a child. For some women, I would put it in the same category as desiring to see blue skies if you were blind and hear music if you were deaf. It doesn't matter at all if the world can hear and see and really doesn't need any more seeing and hearing people. It's a desire of the heart, and I am happy that different things are available to different people. Adoption is beautiful. Falling in love with life inside you is beautiful. As long as babies are loved and wanted, I'm not particular about how they become part of a family.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
     
  9. blue22

    blue22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But, if I go get a boob job....that doesn't effect a baby in my body.

    Not only that, If a woman NEEDS to have a child so badly to do this, to be a worthy person...I think that shows she is mentally unstable...and should not be having a child. I sure hope they do seriously thorough mental evaluations for something like this.
     
  10. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38

    ******My son is adopted. Out of foster care. *******
    What "kind" of children do you imagine need forever homes are in foster-care? They're not all broken and disabled. You don't believe there are any "good ones" available?
    I suppose if someone wants a perfect infant, that looks just like them, and comes with a written guarantee of meeting their standards....maybe parenthood isn't really for them.

    My opinion stands.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well said. I don't understand the objections. Women are saying "keep the government out of my womb", but want this procedure 'outlawed'. This isn't China .......yet?
     
  12. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Personally, I'm all for limiting the number of children a family can have, and passing some sort of test before being able to have them would be lovely too:)

    Ahhhh. If I ruled the world! lol




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  13. blue22

    blue22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The government wouldn't be in their womb. It would be in a womb that is not theirs, that they surgically put there, and are using to scientifically create a baby.

    I actually do think there is a big difference.

    JMO
     
  14. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38

    How will you feel when insurance starts covering it?

    Insurance doesn't cover boob jobs;)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As a woman who's gone through IVF and infertility, I understand this. I waited too long to have children, and yes I've also had abortions. These children are wanted, not ones given up and it's not selfish to want your own DNA. I would have adopted if I couldn't have my own child, but that was my last preference.
    It was expensive, but our insurance covered part of it. That's our choice and right. Noone else's. She's an only child. Besides, not everyone abuses the system like Nadia Suleman. She gives IVF a bad name.
    P.S. Some surrogates change their mind and don't give up the child...
     
  16. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm in favor of it.
     
  17. blue22

    blue22 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am REALLY NOT in favor of insurance covering things like this, IVF, or insemination. I know some insurance companies cover part of costs now and it makes me angry.
     
  18. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It makes me angry that boob jobs and Viagra are covered.
     
  19. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38

    I don't think I'd be half as angry about the subject, if the pro-life folks were actually stepping up and helping the children already here by providing loving homes or financially helping parents that chose life.

    Maybe it's the hypocrisy I'm more annoyed by? I dunno... I'm tired...lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, except that I can guarantee you it's not pro-lifers who are having IVF.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice