Page 13 | Baby born after womb transplant

Wildflowers99 · 2025-04-07T19:40:14+00:00

[[https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/34329085/womb-transplant-baby-hope/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/34329085/womb-transplant-baby-hope/]] I’m not really sure how I feel about this. On one hand it all seems consensual and fine, and nice that they’re all happy. On the other it seems yet more expansion of surrogacy-type science, making pregnancy/babies a sort of human right that we should go to any lengths to make possible for people. And all the ethical/moral issues around that. What do you think?

TooBigForMyBoots · 08/04/2025 19:29

DisneyTokyoNewbie · 08/04/2025 17:20

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.There is no immediate risk of death from marriage and sex. It is estimated that up to 15 percent of women experience reproductive coercion. Which is repugnant. So I'd like to not add to the list of things women feel pressured to do with their bodies.

Show quote history

Marriage, abortion, sex and childbirth are all risky to women. They are also amazing for women.

Bodily Autonomy is exactly that. Even if you disagree with how other women exercise it.

DisneyTokyoNewbie · 08/04/2025 21:46

TooBigForMyBoots · 08/04/2025 19:29

Marriage, abortion, sex and childbirth are all risky to women. They are also amazing for women.

Bodily Autonomy is exactly that. Even if you disagree with how other women exercise it.

Edited

Show quote history

One persons bodily autonomy can be another person's oppression.

TooBigForMyBoots · 09/04/2025 00:22

No, it can't. Bodily Autonomy means exactly that. You have autonomy over your body. I have autonomy over my body.

Ownership of your body is the opposite of oppression.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:36

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 08/04/2025 09:19

No it won't. Female to male uterus transplants will never be possible.

Show quote history

Not the point. Transplant specialists say it WILL be possible - they're the experts. And, the point is, that is the end goal. They didn't do this for women. Ultimately, their goal is for men. That's the fact.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:47

Wildflowers99 · 08/04/2025 09:41

I think this is quite naive.

They’ve managed to induce lactation in transwomen 🤮🤮🤮🤮 something we would’ve said the same thing about thirty years ago.

I no longer feel complacent about these things.

Show quote history

My sentiments exactly. Given transplant surgeons are pushing this (men having uterus transplant) so hard, I'm not complacent either. Regardless of how the story ended for this woman, she was not, and never will be, the end game or the goal. She was a step along the path to practice for these surgeons. Women are not the reason or end goal for these surgeons. That's why I can't support it.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:53

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 08/04/2025 09:56

I see what you mean, but you are talking about an entirely different and as not yet invented medical procedure.

I'm struggling to see how growing babies in labs would ever get ethical approval, but even if it did, I don't think developing uterus transplant techniques is necessarily going to help make that possible.

Show quote history

Test tube babies were the start of it.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:57

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 08/04/2025 10:00

Sort of, but I'm not convinced.

And why should women with MRKH be denied access to medical treatment which does exist today, on the grounds that it might hypothetically pave the way for other, as yet non existent, procedures to be developed which might one day enable men to be pregnant or babies to be grown in labs?

Show quote history

This isn't 'medical treatment'. This is experimentation, when the woman's body for some reason, is not meant to have a baby. That's mother nature. Why should someone just because she has MRKH, be entitled to this. It's sad they have MRKH, but that's the dice life's given them. They need to accept it. Adopt, foster. Just because they have MRKH, does not mean they should have this operation, it's not justification. If she was meant to have a baby she would have been born with the ability to have one. It's fate.

Audhdmum · 09/04/2025 06:00

Fate? So a person with cancer shouldn’t be treated because they were ‘meant’ to die? Medicine is all about defying nature, because Mother Nature is often a complete bitch.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 09/04/2025 06:08

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:57

This isn't 'medical treatment'. This is experimentation, when the woman's body for some reason, is not meant to have a baby. That's mother nature. Why should someone just because she has MRKH, be entitled to this. It's sad they have MRKH, but that's the dice life's given them. They need to accept it. Adopt, foster. Just because they have MRKH, does not mean they should have this operation, it's not justification. If she was meant to have a baby she would have been born with the ability to have one. It's fate.

Edited

Show quote history

So are people with cancer not entitled to chemotherapy then?

I assume you're anti IVF as well.

And let's abolish all premature baby units because those babies were obviously not meant to live.

How silly.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 09/04/2025 06:12

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:53

Test tube babies were the start of it.

Show quote history

IVF is amazing technology which has brought countless very much loved and wanted babies into the world.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:18

Tbrh · 08/04/2025 11:14

To be fair, I don't see how it's different from using a sperm donor. Currently women only need sperm to have a child, men can't do the equivalent.

Show quote history

We're talking about transplanting a whole entire womb. Not just donating sperm. The equivalent would be transplanting prostate and testicles into a woman.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 09/04/2025 06:23

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 05:36

Not the point. Transplant specialists say it WILL be possible - they're the experts. And, the point is, that is the end goal. They didn't do this for women. Ultimately, their goal is for men. That's the fact.

Show quote history

No, "gender experts" AKA quack doctors will say it is possible, and only fools will believe them.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:24

Guardian12 · 08/04/2025 11:18

I think it’s wonderful, I saw the story on BBC news and the joy that this has brought to the parents and the sister who donated was obvious.

One thing I hate about mumsnet is the coldness towards infertile women and the downright rejection of medical advancements that could allow them to have a family. Feminism to me means women helping each other.

If you honestly believe the sister wasn't pressured after the donor recipient went through a list of female relatives like cattle (instead of accepting mother nature's fate and fostering or adopting) then I have a bridge to sell you. The sister would not have been popular if she was the last on the list and a match, and she said no. This is why it's exploitation. The womb recipient is a vile selfish person who would not accept reality and instead went through all living females instead of fostering/adopting. She is a repugnant vile selfish horrible woman to do this, to even have the entitlement to expect it.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:27

Annoyeddd · 08/04/2025 11:51

I would like to think I would do it without a second thought for a sister or daughter (all hypothetical as I have no female relatives in need of it).
As for those who think trans women will be having womb transplants all over the place because trans is a fetish have not met many trans people.
Bound to be a few as everyone is different and there will be some unscrupulous surgeons in some countries who will happily carry it out.

Show quote history

have not met many trans people.

On the contrary. We've met more than a few. People like yourself don't seem to have met any, at all.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:29

Guardian12 · 08/04/2025 12:08

If a loved one needed it I would.

As I said above, I’m suggesting anyone donates who doesn’t want to. Whether it’s for a stranger or your sister. But to have the option is a good thing. I know the Mumsnet line is no one has a right to a child,
but the reality for many women is having a child is incredibly important. One woman helping another with that should be celebrated.

Show quote history

but the reality for many women is having a child is incredibly important.

That is why fostering/adopting exists.

And it's not 'helping' if he pressure to do so is so incredibly immense that if you're the only woman in the family who can, and you say no, Christmases and birthdays etc would be incredibly difficult due to the judgement.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:31

Guardian12 · 08/04/2025 12:42

You’re being a bit ridiculous now. Absolutely no one is suggesting you donate your womb.
My point was that a woman helping another in this way should be viewed through a feminist lens.

As for help to the donor, I imagine it would be similar to whatever the current situation is for living donors on the NHS.

Show quote history

It's not feminist if it's under duress. And it ALWAYS is.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:34

whippy1981 · 08/04/2025 13:02

But this is the point is that women would be pressured into it as this woman clearly was. Pressure to donate is a major issue and one that cannot be ignored. Saying no and no meaning no not try harder to convince someone should be celebrated as a positive. Consent is everything and should be free from coercion and the likes of people saying it makes someone a better woman/feminist if she donates. This story shows that consent and the pressure that happens is all too real and given she was offered surrogacy and said no that carrying the baby was more important to her than that. Despite the risks to her sister and the baby she felt her feelings were more important than the both of these.

Surely the help for financial support, care etc would come from the recipient surely? As they would be helping another woman who helped them surely which is feminism, right? Nothing in the article mentions what she did for her sister to help her financially or physically.

Show quote history

This story shows that consent and the pressure that happens is all too real and given she was offered surrogacy and said no that carrying the baby was more important to her than that.

That's why with these people, mother nature rarely gets it wrong. There was a reason she couldn't have a child. And her selfishness comes out which means fate was right.

Dogaredabomb · 09/04/2025 06:37

I don't understand why the older sister didn't use her own womb to have the frozen embryos implanted.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:39

BIossomtoes · 08/04/2025 14:26

So it seems. Nobody cares about the thousands of hearts, kidneys or livers that get transplanted but somehow a uterus is special. It makes no sense to me.

Show quote history

That's disingenuous. We need a heart, kidney and liver to survive. No one needs a womb to survive. It's about exploiting a woman's sexual organs and going against mother nature and fate.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:41

H112 · 08/04/2025 14:36

You mean trans women ?

It wouldn't work for transgender women even with a womb transplant. Many get educated before making ignorant comments.

Show quote history

Um, transplant surgeons have said they believe it will be possible for transwomen to get womb transplants in the future. So how about you get educated before making ignorant comments, and catch up on what the transplant surgeons say. They say 10-15 years it will be possible.

MessinaBloom · 09/04/2025 06:41

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:39

That's disingenuous. We need a heart, kidney and liver to survive. No one needs a womb to survive. It's about exploiting a woman's sexual organs and going against mother nature and fate.

Show quote history

A uterus isn’t a sexual organ, but reproductive.

Your posts are dripping with hate.

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:42

BIossomtoes · 08/04/2025 14:38

The latter sustains the life of an unborn baby. Corneas don’t sustain life, we transplant a shedload of those.

Show quote history

The latter sustains the life of an unborn baby.

Which is not necessary to sustain the life of the woman.

Corneas help people see. It has benefit. Transplanting wombs is a selfish want, it has zero benefit.

McSpoot · 09/04/2025 06:44

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:34

This story shows that consent and the pressure that happens is all too real and given she was offered surrogacy and said no that carrying the baby was more important to her than that.

That's why with these people, mother nature rarely gets it wrong. There was a reason she couldn't have a child. And her selfishness comes out which means fate was right.

Show quote history

So, no glasses, no hearing aids, no transplants of anything, etc. it’s fate, right?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 09/04/2025 06:44

TheGentleOpalMember · 09/04/2025 06:41

Um, transplant surgeons have said they believe it will be possible for transwomen to get womb transplants in the future. So how about you get educated before making ignorant comments, and catch up on what the transplant surgeons say. They say 10-15 years it will be possible.

Show quote history

No serious doctor has said any such thing.

user1492757084 · 09/04/2025 06:44

It's a mind blowing medical break through.
Lucky baby.
Amazing and only something a woman would do for her sister - donate her uterus.

I hope the mother's deformed uterus is not carried on to her daughter. That is the risk of using her own eggs. Hopefully the fertilised egg was tested.

I have a problem with the donar being a living person and having to live the rest of her days without her uterus. I hope she wasn't unduly pressured to have the surgery.

I would prefer that they transplanted the uterus from a deceased woman. (NOT the ovaries as well, obviously)