maggiekb — 2014-01-14T11:12:14-05:00 — #1
alexandrakitty — 2014-01-14T11:31:09-05:00 — #2
Well, if it was good enough for mom, it is good enough for you...
jeblucas — 2014-01-14T13:36:11-05:00 — #3
They had to be removed because of blood clots and also weirdness clots.
clamb — 2014-01-14T15:09:47-05:00 — #4
Wouldn't it be easier to do this using time travel?
redstarr — 2014-01-14T17:42:07-05:00 — #5
jule — 2014-01-15T12:10:12-05:00 — #6
Actually mother and daughter being born from the same uterus is possible without a uterus transplant. An artificially inseminated ovum can be grafted into a future grandmother's (and host mother's) uterus.
alexandrakitty — 2014-01-15T12:26:52-05:00 — #7
And what a clever way having a child without losing your figure...
wearysky — 2014-01-15T12:30:21-05:00 — #8
Hasn't this already happened? I'm sure I've heard of stories where grandmothers acted as surrogates for their daughters.
alexandrakitty — 2014-01-15T12:34:17-05:00 — #9
redstarr — 2014-01-15T15:22:45-05:00 — #10
Being a surrogate and giving your uterus to be transplanted are two different things. As a surrogate, you let the baby grow in your uterus while your uterus is still intact inside your own body and give birth to the baby. With a transplant, your uterus is removed from your body and put into someone else's who uses it to get pregnant and carry and give birth to a baby with it. It's like a kidney, heart, or lung transplant.
wearysky — 2014-01-15T15:42:36-05:00 — #11
Well yes, obviously, but the headline of the article is "mother and child could be born from the same uterus" - which has happened many a time.
maggiekb — 2014-01-19T11:12:16-05:00 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.