What is Digg?64 Comments
- BryanJK, on 11/15/2008, -0/+25I love science
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -1/+19thank god, because if it was anything we needed, it was more ways to create babies.
- RSS14, on 11/15/2008, -1/+17"there's true Scientific creationism for you."
Fix'd. - Oxygen, on 11/15/2008, -0/+12http://www.laughinggame.com/wp-content/uploads/200 ...
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -2/+11Now, if we could just develop a similar surgery to add parents to the millions of orphans in the world, we'd have a win win.
And since when is transplanted ovary baby making natural? - mycoplasma, on 11/15/2008, -1/+8Isn't it easier just to adopt an orphan than get an ovary transplant?
- noahgelman, on 11/15/2008, -1/+8This is good because she got it from a twin sister and their DNA is identical and its just like if it was originally hers, but if she got it from another person unrelated to her, then the baby resulting from a pregnancy wouldn't have her DNA but the DNA of the donor. At least I think so.
- Fleminator, on 11/16/2008, -1/+7Identical twins have identical DNA.
- radzack, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6This is cool. Hope for women that are distraught for being infertile.
- firefly2271, on 11/15/2008, -0/+6no, thank the doctors and medical science
- kernel16, on 11/15/2008, -0/+5Well in this case the husband can claim 50%, and exactly what trouble are we talking about regarding the husband?
- firefly2271, on 11/15/2008, -0/+5natural birth and conception
- super_spyder, on 11/16/2008, -1/+6I would like to see this done again, except put a black person's ovary into a white person, so i could be thoroughly confused.
- doctornkul, on 11/16/2008, -0/+5Also, her identical twin donated her ovary. Identical twins have the exact same DNA, so the child is genetically "hers"
- BryanJK, on 11/15/2008, -2/+6holy hell that's a long sentence
- H4n90fThur5D4y5, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4I agree with you, bilhaz. I know people are going to disagree, but I think it's ridiculous that we spend money on infertility treatments and research when A) there are so many children in need of loving homes and B) there are much more serious medical conditions in need of treatment. I'll never understand why people find conceiving children so important.
- Jack8274, on 11/16/2008, -3/+7You do have a point about the orphans. Just have a ***** abortion you god obsessed ignorant bastards. Why make a child which you don't even want, suffer there whole life so you can go to your imaginary heaven because you abandoned it instead of stopping pregnancy.
- skywake, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4explain to me how this is a triumph for Atheism?
True, there are some religions where this would be frowned upon (hell, some religions frown upon surgery full stop) and some fundamentalist Christian is bound to be against it (you can find one against anything). Overall however I would say this is a triumph for science rather then atheism. I would wager that most people in the world would support this regardless of creed. - rmad1949, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4You would also have to be an identical twin too realize what you say here means nothing to the mother or her sister. Two are one.
- shenaniJen, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4Yes, I believe so too. Women are born with all their eggs; men make theirs continually through life.
This is really really awesome news for people who find out they have cancer but haven't had children yet. - kruykaze, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3That baby don't look like me. :(
- chrisduser, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3[This is great, but who is the real mother?]
[but who is the real mother?]
[the real mother?]
[real mother] - shenaniJen, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3Didn't read the article did you? She didn't do it to merely get pregnant, it was just an added bonus. She did it to treat her Osteoporosis.
- thecheatah, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4pfff, what a looser!
I can do her and science at the same time! - Zervaman, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3Whoa! I didn't even know that was possible!
Medical science amazes me, once again! - palehorse864, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3If you get the transplant, they wouldn't be your genes. The two women are twins, so the DNA would be the same in this case, but the genes for the child are still coming from her sister, so its similar to surrogacy or adoption.
- mycoplasma, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3Try reading the article.
- RikkiTikki, on 11/15/2008, -6/+8This woman went through the "joy" of pregnancy and the pain of child birth for a baby who isn't genetically hers? Why not just adopt and save you and your husband the trouble?
- Nudar, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2what's so amazing about it? if you don't have a twin, it wouldn't even have your dna and it would be no different than ivf.
- SilverBlade2k, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Great.
But, lets see some research/discoveries for treating infertile males. - shenaniJen, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2This is truly awesome!
What's up with the elective c-section though? Sheesh. - inactive, on 11/15/2008, -2/+4I love MEDICAL Science
- someology, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1My first thought on seeing the headline was also "well, it isn't any more her daughter than if she had a donated egg," but reading the article, the ovary came from her identical twin, which means the child is genetically the same as if she had conceived it with her own ovary, as identical twins have identical DNA. This is an exceptional case where there were other medical treatment reasons for the transplant. For most infertile women, however, I do think that embryo donation or something would be better. Avoid an unnecessary surgery, etc.
- mycoplasma, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1@chipxsd: Yes, but that still sounds alot more difficult than adopting an orphan.
- Th3Wh1teRabb1t, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1I came into this thread expecting a religious view being cited right off the bat... but this was a surprise
- someology, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Since her identical twin donated the ovary, and identical twins have DNA, then the child is the same genetically as if she had conceived it with her own ovary. If someone other than an identical twin donated, then the child would not genetically be hers. duh. Did you not have elementary school science?
- celotil, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1I have only one question, and no I didn't read the article because I doubt they'd get into this for the purpose of a simple press release, and that is - does the baby have the combined DNA of the father and the woman with the new ovaries, or the father and the woman who donated the ovaries?
As far as I was aware, girls were born with a full quantity of eggs to last them from puberty to menstruation, and that was it, unlike men who's sperm are created, hang around for a couple of days, and reabsorbed into the body, this process going on continuously - sperm are really not as complex as eggs, being little more than a protein string wrapped in a self-delivering parcel.
Ah, before I clicked submit I skimmed quickly over the article and noticed that it said that the two women involved are twins, so that answers my DNA query - yes, I know that DNA isn't the only deciding factor in the womb, since there's environmental factors like the mother's diet and climatic habitat to consider as well, but as far as DNA parentage is concerned then the child is okay with either sister.
It's an interesting experiment, and I hope the practicalities are weighed more heavily than any religious concerns, the practicalities being based in verifiable science while the religious are based in ... jack squat.
I only hope that when the child learns about the difficulties involved with their conception and the solution to the problem that they grow more interested in Biology and don't go and label themselves as some sort of experimental freak. - askantik, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Adopt a child.
- someology, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1This would probably be difficult, becuase this ovary was transplanted into a female body, developed from the womb to host ovaries. What's more, the ovary came from her twin sister, who is genetically identical, so problems with rejection, etc, aren't an issue. In the case of a male to female sex change, the proper female hormones are artificially present through medication. So I'm not sure if such an individual's body could support the ovary's survival. However, if the implanted organ _could_ survive, that might help the patient maintain a more natural balance of female hormones without medicine, which is an interesting thought. However, all the hormones in the female body do not come from just the ovaries, and these other systems will be male ones requiring constant fighting with and medication.
- LocalDocal, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1Don't be so pessimistic. Technically, this method seems to just consist of transplanting an organ from a genetically similar person into another person's body, so really, it's only a small (although significant) step towards greater discoveries. Besides, I would imagine that such a method is applicable to men too. Wouldn't an infertile man with a twin brother be able to get a transplanted testicle?
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1That is Top secret.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1The print edition of this publication is highly respectable but the tactics which its online arm is employing to get visitors are getting a bit wearing now. Can we go a day without a single Telegraph article on the homepage please?
This is the NEW Huffington Post. - shenaniJen, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1In this case, the child does have the same genetic code; only because the donor was an identical twin of the mother. Otherwise, I don't believe the genetics would be the same as the mother since women are born with all their eggs (stored in their ovaries).
- chrisduser, on 11/15/2008, -2/+2This is great, but who is the real mother?
- chipxsd, on 11/16/2008, -1/+1It depends...
If you wanted a baby, would you rather choose your own baby, with your parts of your genetic code; or someone else's? - LocalDocal, on 11/16/2008, -0/+0@RikkiTikki
The article states that they did consider adoption, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth it. Besides, I don't know why you put the word joy in quotes. From what I gathered, she seems ludicrously happy.
Personally, I myself support adoption for childless couples, but I do understand their desire for something like this. I know the Digg arm-chair Darwins are opposed to research in allowing people to have children instead of forcing them to adopt, but ultimately, this may be beneficial. A couple that goes through something like this for a child will probably appreciate their child more than normal parents or adoptive parents.
@Kernel
I'm guessing mostly financial plus some other things. Amazing, I know, but pregnancy and childbirth is not completely a joyride for husbands. They do have to run around the place helping their wives, setting up hospital visits, and generally preparing for any emergencies. A guy can become a nervous wreck worrying about complications during his wife's pregnancy. - chipxsd, on 11/16/2008, -0/+0Ok, I guess none of you read the article ...
If your girlfriend (or wife) was diagnosed with cancer or osteoporosis, she could get one of her ovaries taken out and frozen, so it wouldn't get damaged during the treatment... After the (successful) treatment, she could have the transplant, to receive her own ovary back, so she "wouldn't need" to have a transplanted ovary from a another person. Thus having her own babies...
Now, if I asked the same question, would you understand it now? - inactive, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0I did. Did you? Did she not have a baby via the transplanted ovary?
- immatellyouwhat, on 11/16/2008, -0/+0Sc Lv S Yu Tu
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 