What is Digg?77 Comments
- EmitStop, on 11/09/2008, -0/+32What the ***** is wrong with you?
- TheJimid, on 11/09/2008, -2/+26The perks of having a perfect genetic match.
- gordonj, on 11/10/2008, -0/+17This is technically going to be her twin's baby. Girls are born with all of their eggs already formed in their ovaries, so the egg that was fertilised was already present before the transplant took place. As they are identical twins, genetically speaking there's practically no difference anyway, so the baby is genetically just as much hers. Children of identical twins are basically genetically half-siblings. An interesting story in any case.
- pacman122, on 11/10/2008, -1/+14Why not adopt a child that has nobody to care for them?
- div2n, on 11/10/2008, -0/+8I'd like to point out that stem cell research may one day pave the way for creating replacement organs with a perfect genetic match.
- FlyCO, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7you mean tWINsome, right?
- slvrbullet87, on 11/10/2008, -0/+7Choke on a dick karakh
- InfiniteNothing, on 11/09/2008, -6/+12Wouldn't it just be easier to have a twinsome?
- Backstab, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5Physically and genetically, she is the mother..
- Backstab, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7I bet some religious group would get mad at this...
- dylio, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7This is truly fascinating.
That would take a lot of courage. I don't know if I could donate my testicles to make my brother fertile. Maybe one, but not both.
If I did he'd have to stop giving me wedgies... - gordonj, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4There's a natural imperative to pass on your own genetic material. Sometimes this overrides logical reasoning, so you won't necessarily know why you're doing it.
- ThantiK, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5Now here's the best dilemma I could think of for the "Pro-Lifers"...what would happen, if we were able to use (non embryonic) stem cells, to make this woman a new ovary, from the research gained from embryonic stem-cell research. So she could have her own ovary/clone ovary, so she could have a kid?
I honestly seriously want to know. If you kill one thing, to ensure another being lives...or maybe even multiple other beings...does it become right then? I understand being against abortions...I get that pro-lifers think that it's basically just murder, but...embryonic stem cell research, why is it possible to be against it?
I'm sure my questions are controversial, but I assure you - this is not intended as a troll. - MeatMountain, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4thats some nice trollin' boys.
/Chief Wiggum - xxpor, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Dont feed the troll.
- StigNordas, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3"Twin gives birth to nephew" would be a better headline.
- MalarkeyPN, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Ah, thank you. I was gonna ask about that. .
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3INCONCEIVABLE!
- NeoCortex, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Is there a way for me to simply block DailyMail content from my front page? This is like having to see the National Inquirer headlines while waiting in line at the grocery store.
- spiderwing, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Interesting, the article speculates that "...the higher rate is connected to the fact that the twins had to share their mother's womb, leading to some biological disturbance..." - but wouldn't that apply just as much to fraternal twins?
- whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2Depends on what you mean by "practically." Identical twins aren't identical, even on the genetic level:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twin ... - cfuse, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2Because it's easier and quicker, and ultimately more likely to result in a good outcome than adoption would.
The adoption process is worse than trying to get military ultra secret clearance, worse than a scientology interrogation, they will want to know things about you that even you don't know.
Not all unwanted children are unwanted on a whim, these days teens will keep their children - this isn't the 50s any more. Some kids have real problems, health, behavioural, disabilities - and these things are all hard to deal with. You aren't likely to get a perfect newborn, more likely you'll get an abused child removed from their own home - and by child we are talking anyway between 4-15.
The process takes forever, and it costs a bank.
That all being said - if it's an option and you are tough enough to handle it, then it can turn out to be the best thing you ever did. Just go in with your eyes open and prepare as much as possible for it. - Backstab, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Yes, but the article is about identical twins.
- gcnaddict, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2----whoosh-----
....(*.*)
...---|---
...._|.|_ - slvrbullet87, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Ah the glories of modern medical science
- azhura, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Hey now. Some men are selfish too and will only want to have kids of their own genetic line. And, it probably isn't so much "selfishness" as a biological inclination to carry on your genes (and not someone else's).
- astutissimo, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Kudos to everyone who adopts. Thank you. I don't think I could do it though.
- Urbanninja622, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2went through THE menopause?
- fuckupedoslut, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I agree, I'm just waiting for the first "OMG stop playing God" comment.
- Digital.Totem, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I assumed everyone knew this.
- fuckupedoslut, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3No, its not for everyone, but that nagging "its not mine" feeling seems to have more to do with immaturity and wanting to play house, then it does wanting to provide love for a child. But then, having a child just to have one seems pretty selfish to me, anyway. Are you just that bored? There are more important things you could do with your life.
- Cannon49, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Pro-lifers have a hard enough time as it is arguing their point in an intellectual conversation. What makes you think they'll be able to give you an intellectually sound answer?
- Br3ach, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2To all with the "why not adopt?" comments
To some women it is just not the same thing, they will never feel like an adopted child is really "theirs" . Do you really want someone to adopt a child and not feel as though it is really theirs?
Not saying adoption is a bad thing by any means, in a perfect world we wouldnt need it. It just isnt for everyone. - s0nicfreak, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1At the very least maybe nature is trying to reduce the chance of them reproducing, if not eliminate it?
- frostbyt, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Well if she is born with the mutation then having the mutation she should not reproduce. Nature clearly selected her not to reproduce for a reason.
- s0nicfreak, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1So strap a bowling ball to their stomach and give them the flu.
- i8that4u, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2but her twinsisters genes are exactly the same.
so she probarely got a mutation wich most likely is not genetic because her sister doesnt have it. - ivanwave, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Wait....it's her Daughter AND Neice.....*Head explodes*
- kefland, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Thank you. +1
- isuisorisuaint, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1pics of twin sister?
- gordonj, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Don't worry, I didn't, although I was feeling a little pedantic when I replied earlier. Apologies for that. Let me elaborate a little. I am aware of copy number variation, and in the article you linked to it mentions that "In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes."
They only used 19 pairs of twins, and apparently found differences in some. The article also suggests that changes may accumulate during one's lifetime, something that I certainly believe is likely. Identical twins are formed from the same zygote, so at the point of fertilisation, they necessarily have exactly the same DNA. This means that any changes that accumulate occur after that. I guess they can occur at any time point after that, but if they don't occur immediately then they will only be in a subset of the body cells, with the remainder being identical to unchanged cells in the twin. At the end of the day it's kind of splitting hairs. It's likely that many cells in your own body contain differences relative to other cells. Depending on the cells you test, you might find that you're not identical to yourself. This is certainly the case in cancerous cells (e.g. leukemia), as cancer is often caused by the disruption of certain genes by mutations or chromosomal rearrangements. This is often caused by environmental factors, and is not necessarily genetic predispositions. I'd say on average that many cells in identical twins probably are identical, but some aren't for the same reasons that some cells in any individual probably aren't the same as others. - inactive, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1She should of just let her husband screw her sister
- yacks, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1maybe he has... maybe he has.
- gordonj, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Hence why I said "practically". And what you should have said is "Identical twins aren't NECESSARILY identical".
- ACiDGRiM, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1I think she only gave one ovary.
- kotatsu, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Oh look, more traffic being driven to the UK's resident neo-nazi racist hate rag, the Daily Hail.
Buried. - Krissam, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1ye, it's a strange term indeed,
why aren't ther pauses at work that long :/ - boulderdsh, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1I've found that most people who are against fertility treatments have no trouble reproducing themselves. I've known a couple of religious people who changed their attitude pretty quickly once they found out *they* would need help conceiving.
- lilSears, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1The new insurance coverage?
- OriginalPinkDog, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1 Some people really really want to experience pregnancy.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is