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