maggiekb at January 14th, 2014 11:12 — #1
alexandrakitty at January 14th, 2014 11:31 — #2
Well, if it was good enough for mom, it is good enough for you...
jeblucas at January 14th, 2014 13:36 — #3
They had to be removed because of blood clots and also weirdness clots.
clamb at January 14th, 2014 15:09 — #4
Wouldn't it be easier to do this using time travel?
redstarr at January 14th, 2014 17:42 — #5
jule at January 15th, 2014 12:10 — #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 at January 15th, 2014 12:26 — #7
And what a clever way having a child without losing your figure...
wearysky at January 15th, 2014 12:30 — #8
Hasn't this already happened? I'm sure I've heard of stories where grandmothers acted as surrogates for their daughters.
alexandrakitty at January 15th, 2014 12:34 — #9
redstarr at January 15th, 2014 15:22 — #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 at January 15th, 2014 15:42 — #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 at January 19th, 2014 11:12 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.