Uterus transplants

[BluesandClues]

Whilst I detest the mirror; I read the article and wondered where all the uteruses will come from

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/doctor-planning-risky-womb-transplant-26882914

But within testing the ethics are applied differently to animals and humans - what may be deemed (rightly or wrongly) ethical for an animal may not be for a human.

And the "first TW pregnancy" will still be a massive experiment - one that an unconsenting, innocent child will be forcibly part of. And there's no knowing the effects of such a pregnancy 5 years down the line, never mind 50-100.

This is a logical extension of the replacing 'woman' with 'uterus-haver', 'cervix-owner', 'person with a vulva' and all the rest. We're just a second-hand car being mined for spare parts

does not in any way indicate that it would be possible or ethical to implant a uterus into a male bodied person.

Bioethicists are considering it (as posted upthread) by drawing analogies with reproductive justice for same sex couples, transplants for women who do not have a uterus etc.

As with many scientific possibilities, the real question is not “can we do it” but “should we do it”

Intrusive question upcoming so feel free to ignore it. Is this something you'd discuss with your friends and family so they knew your views on uterus donation and you knew theirs if you were asked if they'd expressed an opinion?

Would people feel comfortable donating to women who were infertile but not TW? Notionally, would people feel comfortable if one of the women receiving a transplant were a FtM detransitioner who had had a hysterectomy (along with other organs) and now wanted a family? Or a TM who did not intend to detransition but wanted children?

Theoretically surmountable per experts in the field. As in worth harming animals with an aim to eventually attempt this kind of surgery.

Artificial wombs such as the ones the Chinese would like to develop would come with ethics issues. If it were to become technically possible, in countries with universal healthcare it could be viewed as a reproductive right for women to have a child without risking her life through pregnancy and childbirth. So would be paid for out of general taxation and not reserved for the wealthy. In countries like the US, with private healthcare systems, you absolutely have that issue. But that issue exists to a certain extent today as the average cost of having a baby is over $15k. Many US women already cannot afford a pregnancy.

Artificial wombs on Woman's Hour now. It's an Anita Rani's Fluffy Friday edition so my hopes aren't high.

I have to go in a minute, but I would never donate my uterus to anyone whilst I was alive or dead right now. I might change my mind, but haven’t read anything compelling enough to do so as of yet. I’m on the fence as to whether I would actively want uterine donation banned in the U.K. and so rob other women of the choice to donate or not.

How is any of this the best for a potential baby? How can anyone thinking of being a parent think the best start for a baby is in a transplanted womb, with everything that would mean medically? It shows such a lack of thought for children.

And a lot of thought for the sentence highlighted by DomesticatedZombie above:
an overwhelming 90% majority of respondents expressed the belief that having a transplanted, functioning uterus and vagina would benefit their sex life and perceived sense of femininity

"Theoretically surmountable per experts in the field. As in worth harming animals with an aim to eventually attempt this kind of surgery.

Artificial wombs such as the ones the Chinese would like to develop would come with ethics issues. If it were to become technically possible, in countries with universal healthcare it could be viewed as a reproductive right for women to have a child without risking her life through pregnancy and childbirth. So would be paid for out of general taxation and not reserved for the wealthy. In countries like the US, with private healthcare systems, you absolutely have that issue. But that issue exists to a certain extent today as the average cost of having a baby is over $15k. Many US women already cannot afford a pregnancy. "

@Discovereads so, as I said, you don't have any clue as to what needs to be surmounted and how that might happen. You are assuming that unnamed "experts" will be able to experiment on animals sufficiently to work out how to achieve this in humans. The only animal experiment that I know of is the rat one, which is not evidence of issues being surmountable.

I can see after all the waffle that you agree with my point about artificial wombs - if ever possible, it will be the preserve of the wealthy and nothing to do with the liberation of women and girls from reproductive function.

I'm just scratching my head wondering what use you think any male-sexed person might expect to make of having a uterus implanted?

@StellaAndCrow How is any of this the best for a potential baby? How can anyone thinking of being a parent think the best start for a baby is in a transplanted womb, with everything that would mean medically? It shows such a lack of thought for children.

Is that only for TW (as for the OP)? What would you think of donation for an infertile woman (although physiologically infertile and socially infertile are separate issues)? Or, as I suggested, for detransitioning FtM, NBs who had a hysterectomy but now would wish to have a family?

Would you talk about any of these donation issues with your family and friends so you'd know what they thought if you were approached in the wretched circumstances of them being considered for organ donation after death?

I thought the blue-haired 'allies' crowd were all raging animal rights enthusiasts? How's that going to work then?

Imagine the cognitive dissonance required for believing that (a) TW should have the luxury experience of being pregnant and giving birth, and (b) that this desire will necessitate huge numbers of unnecessary and horrific experiments on animals.

Do they actually enjoy the sensation of cognitive dissonance? Does it make them feel all edgy, or is it just another annoyance to bat away because of some guff about queer subjectivity?

Another aspect of this 'lets have artificial uteruses and grow babies in labs so parents can just go live their lives and come collect the finished product at the end' is to separate all emotional bonds and connections between unborn children and their mother. The female parent. The one whose body is being shared by the child.

It dehumanises the child to better commodify it.

And to the pp above: I would refuse uterus donation full stop to anyone at all. I don't want my body used to make children with any biological connection to me when I have no means of knowing and supporting the wellbeing and care of that child - and we're talking at the moment about a child who will be the subject of experimentation with huge amounts of drugs and no real care for that child as a person who has 80 plus years of life to deal with after they've finished the 9 months of being used by the person who wanted the experience of pregnancy. Adult selfishness is becoming the primary concern.

And again the utter incoherence:

pregnant females cannot have a bloody paracetamol for fear of harming the child
but lets stuff people and the unborn child full of all kinds of drugs to enable this agenda

women should never be allowed to end a pregnancy because pro life, tiny human, omg the horror
but lets create a foetus specifically to experiment on and then destroy to enable this agenda.

It comes down really to it not being about the child at all, but about male people's freedoms and the need to control and own female bodies. And to be able to buy children as a desired life experience. #ideserveit

Same old same old: where is the line in using non consenting other humans to indulge a personal desire for an experience?

Do they actually enjoy the sensation of cognitive dissonance?

With a believer in gender ideology you are starting from the pov of subjective feelings create reality, facts are selectively chosen to support the desired reality and match feelings, and unwanted facts can be disapparated. They don't exist. You are a hater, and unkind and denying existence and literally violent and bigoted and Other Words Too if you point out those facts or inconvenient bits of reality that are being disapparated to enable the chosen reality to exist.

It is entirely based in embracing and rationalising cognitive dissonance. Which you then protect by whackamole tactics to try and prevent anyone saying or doing anything that jars the personal reality.

This does involve dividing society into two groups: those who get to set reality and demand that everyone else enables it or else, and those who don't get to choose reality or make choices or do anything but serve the others to maintain their reality uninterrupted and shut up, or else.

I've bumped the Womb Transplant Survey thread from 2019 as it is relevant to some of this discussion.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux?

My understanding of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 is that it is currently unlawful to implant an embryo into a male body. The law would need to be changed.

So the UK surgeons suggesting that this is a possibility (in the UK) are really just exploiting potential clients by unjustifiably raising their hopes.

Personalky, I think there will be artificial incubators growing foetuses to term before there is any success in growing foetuses in male bodies, no matter what cocktail of hormones they take.

That's interesting for a number of reasons.

If a TM needs an assisted conception, is this a case where, although the legal standing is that the TM is male (following gender affirmation), this wouldn't count as implanting an embryo in a male body?

Would the same be true for NBs who were recorded as F at birth but would now reject that they have a sex?

The bioethics paper upthread discusses the possibility of a uterus implant for TW as a means of relieving dysphoria rather than, necessarily, for reproductive purposes. (See also the bumped thread on the Imperial survey.)

women should never be allowed to end a pregnancy because pro life, tiny human, omg the horror

but lets create a foetus specifically to experiment on and then destroy to enable this agenda.

On another thread that wandered into this topic, I did get called a 'pro-lifer' for actually having the gall to not want foetuses over a certain age to be used as experimental fodder.

Because let's be open and honest here. Male uterine implants wanders into experimenting on viable foetuses (not just ethically monitored embryos) after a certain number of weeks. Just how many of those will survive these experiments? How many are considered ok to experiment on to allow males to have viable pregnancies, and .... for what purpose is that for again?

And we all keep coming back to what will be the health repercussions to any that do survive? Yes, considering the foods and substances we can ingest as females that are known to have issues with either the pregnancy or the child's health.

I don't believe any longevity was allowed for the lamb in a bag. And I am not sure how relevant those tests would have been anyway for humans and for the full effects over the life span of a human.

But that is what the bottom line is here. Anyone advocating to prevent these experiments is labelled a pro-lifer and to be reviled.

If a TM needs an assisted conception, is this a case where, although the legal standing is that the TM is male (following gender affirmation), this wouldn't count as implanting an embryo in a male body?

Would the same be true for NBs who were recorded as F at birth but would now reject that they have a sex?

yes... that is an interesting discussion point too.

It's pure science fiction and 'what-iffery'
File it under "Would you rather fight 10 badger sized humans or one human sized badger"

All of this stuff falls under the head transplant (or rather body transplant) type of out there science.

Im currently debating whether to go through the trauma of a hysterectomy as I've been crippled with pain from endometriosis - if they'd like my uterus and to have some idea of the realities of being a woman for even a week, then they're welcome to it. They'd be pretty quick at asking for it to be taken out again if they experienced even half of what I and 1/10 women go through!

A simplistic view of it all I know

Children remain "special property" and/or a by-product of a commercial transaction in that newspaper article.

So slavery is legal if you are wealthy enough to buy a child.

Children Some humans remain "special property" and/or a by-product of a commercial transaction in that newspaper article.

The right to buy is given a false equivalence to the ability to produce. If you can make it, I have a right to buy and own it too.

Be Kind, everybody who wants to have a baby should have the right to have a baby and everybody should have the right not to have a baby.

Be Kind, everybody woman who can not grow a baby or men who could never grow babies, who want to have a baby human should have the right to have a baby human and everybody once sperm production is finished men loose the right to choose if they have a human (or not) but women who grow the babies should have the right not to have a baby human.

So one size fits all is never going to work.

That's why countries which have loose or no laws about the rights of children as citizens are popular when they allow trading contracts for commissioned babies (citizens who have no ability to seek redress). I am sure that if I wanted to adopt or foster a child in those States that I would have to go through a process to prove that I would be a good parent for the child. What checks are needed if I commission a child?

Abortion and the right to abortion look at the right of the carrier and the carried. Where the right conflict abortion legislation rank the two rights. Even then all societies which have abortion recognise that there is a time when a "preterm carried" can go through medical interventions and survive without the carrier and impose restrictions which recognise these rights. These restrictions do not benefit the carrier so the ranking of rights change.

Transplanting an organ with the sole intention of growing a baby human is to start out with the intent to carry out a experiment on a baby human from the time of implantation of a viable embryo to the birth.

Ethical discussions which debate about the carrier not the carried reinforce the social standard that children some humans are "special property".

Words are important, changing meaning of words has an impact.

I bumped the other thread with a survey that explored some of these questions.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3605548-Imperial-College-Womb-Transplant-Survey-Redux?

The researcher in question believes TWAW and effectively declared that they would be viable recipients from his perspective (see survey reasons).

It's the same researcher as for this trial that does seem to be only for biological women.

clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04244409?

For this researcher, it would seem as if a uterus implant (he would say it's a transplant) might be considered for reasons other than reproduction but (as the upthread bioethics paper discussed) for the alleviation of dysphoria.

But that is what the bottom line is here. Anyone advocating to prevent these experiments is labelled a pro-lifer and to be reviled.

Ah so that's where the TRAs (esp to US ones) are going with this, @Helleofabore - to help them in their efforts to link GC women with right-wing evangelical fruitcakery, like that weird Montgomerie person on Twitter.

I think in the UK we are cool with repeating our lines of sanity. I tend to channel Sir Robert Winston in the House of Lords on these matters.

SpindleInTheWind

yes. It got whipped out very quickly on that other thread which was, if I remember, about a body always being male until death. The poster thought it was the ultimate as a 'gotcha'. They could not have cared less about the ethics of it all. It was only ever about telling us that we were outdated, and ridiculous, that it was happening in the next few years and to just get over it.

But yes. That we were obviously pro-life because we were against experimentation on viable human foetuses as a means to allow males to 'have babies'.