zlacker

>>iamthi+(OP)
From the article (not all contiguous but related):

> A new frontier, uterus transplants are seen as a source of hope for women who cannot give birth because they were born without a uterus or had to have it removed because of cancer, other illness or complications from childbirth. Researchers estimate that in the United States, 50,000 women might be candidates.

> The transplants are meant to be temporary, left in place just long enough for a woman to have one or two children, and then removed so she can stop taking the immune-suppressing drugs needed to prevent organ rejection.

> The transplants are now experimental, with much of the cost covered by research funds. But they are expensive, and if they become part of medical practice, will probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not clear that insurers will pay, and Dr. Testa acknowledged that many women who want the surgery will not be able to afford it.

While the science is amazing, why go this route rather than having a surrogate mother? I've heard the price of a surrogate is $30-50K.

>>koolba+d4
Let’s say you lost your testicles due to cancer, but there’s a new procedure that can grow new ones from your stem cells. It’s experimental and will cost $150,000. Before having your cancerous testes removed you stored sperm.

Are you really surprised that some men who want to be fathers would choose to have the procedure rather than using their own previously stored sperm?

>>xenadu+b9
That's pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Carrying a child inside of you, is no stretch of the imagination equivalent to impregnating someone the old fashioned way. No man in their right mind would put up $150,000 in experimental money, when they have their own stored semen. Sure, if none exists maybe, but doing all that just so you can use fresh? That's just silly. It's still your DNA, and you can still have sex.