Baby born after womb transplant

[Wildflowers99]

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?

Living in a mansion enhances a person's life, too, that doesn't mean we all should get it because we want it.

We need to understand that fate has decided there are some things we can't do. That's it.

Fostering and adoption can enhance infertile women's lives. Not taking organs from other women, it's vile and abhorrent.

There isn’t room in the male pelvis for a baby to grow. A male cannot supply all the nutrients, vascular connections and anti-rejection components (along with everything else) a foetus requires. This is pure science-fiction and scaremongering.

God mumsnet is a weird disgusting cesspit of hateful women.

Trans people won't "be having womb transplants all over the place" because it won't ever be scientifically possible.

The ones currently saying they want to have one so they can be the first trans woman ever to have an abortion clearly do have a fetish though. Who would even think that thought, let alone verbalise it?

You can't "carry out" a procedure that doesn't exist, however unscrupulous you are.

A uterus transplant into a male recipient has only been attempted once, and the recipient died. Modern medical ethics wouldn't allow doctors to attempt a surgery like this with no realistic prospect of success but significant risk to the patient. It's not like performing a vaginoplasty where the desired outcome is purely cosmetic. (And even then it often goes wrong and the desired outcome is not achieved.) In the unlikely event that attempting this did ever get approval from a dodgy ethics committee somewhere, the most likely outcome is that the patient would simply become seriously ill or die.

Men will never ge able to carry babies. It will be an impossibility. So I wouldn’t even give it a second thought.

Certain areas, yes.

And that is all it is about. They don't give a fluck about the baby, it's all about the selfish needs of the 'parent'. It's the most selfish, vile and morally repugnant thing I've ever heard of. The very fact that the womb recipient in this case rejected adopting and even surrogacy because it was most important to her to have it 'grow in her' shows the type of self-centred person she is, it's about her and her 'experience' and not the baby, and why mother nature often gets it right with these selfish people.

Do you have children yourself?

I remember being anxious about this when I was about 12 years old - so, 40-ish years ago. There must have been some sort of media panic about it then, too, but I suppose the doctors haven’t caught up yet 🙂

This is exploitation of women, @Winifredtabago . This does not benefit women at all!

No, we are ideologically opposed to exploitation of women.

She could have fostered or adopted.

Just because you want something, doesn't mean you should have it.

Wrong. Many of us have strong morals that underpins our beliefs and choices, and I know darn well on 40 million Bibles that I would never, ever EVER want to exploit another woman, just because I couldn't have a baby. Not now, not ever.

You seem to have extrapolated a great deal about this woman and her motivations from a few articles/interviews. At the moment, you sound a great deal more awful than she may be.

4 million women on this site.

It's a fair representation of women and mothers.

What else would you say is a "real representation" of women and mothers, if not this site?

It does help women. I watched this person on the news- she was female

What I'm taking from this is that you have children of your own but feel entitled to comment on what other people who aren't as fortunate as you should be allowed to do.

Guess you've never heard of selective bias then.

This is a certain section of the female population on here. Dont be so naive to think mumsnet represents women as a whole. A lot of hatred on here, a lot of anti men.

A sexual organ that is not needed. And no, it wasn't the sister's idea. The womb recipient systematically went through her female relatives and made them get tested to be a match. The sister was the last in the line who was a match. It was not her idea. And if she said no, after all that effort of that list and all other women in the family being tested, she would NOT be popular in her family. And you know it.

This is not 'bodily autonomy'. It's the exact opposite. It is pressure and exploitation.

No you're being silly. Chemotherapy does not harm another person. Neither does premature baby units.

Removing organs from other people is exploitation and harms others.

Do you know these people? I bet you havent even seen them talking about it otherwise you wouldn't be saying these things.

So Transplant Surgeons are 'quack doctors'?

What are reproductive organs if not sexual?

There is no hate in my posts, just detached reality.