Table of Comments (2948)

by section

Comments on

Miracle Baby

Prashi replies to Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi on paragraph 5

I think that something many people have overlooked is that while men may be able to physically harbor a baby, the hormones that a pregnant woman produces that are responsible for preventing her from rejecting the fetus are not normally produced in men. Of course, one may suggest injections of this hormone, but it could potentially have harmful side effects.

It sounds kinda crazy, but I agree that it might actually be possible for men to bear children...there's the down side of being...you know, DEAD. But upwards of that, wow. I mean...all they might really need is in vitro..and some way to INJECT the fertilized egg. Wow. I bet when I'm in my 50's I'll see pregnant men (!!) walking down the street. And hopefully, the danger of cancer would have been eliminated, but only for its role to be efficiently overtaken by SARS. What a bleak (bright?) future.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  11:01 pm
Prashi on paragraph 2

Its strange how life can come in so many different ways. It seems that each one of us is built with this ‘will to survive package’. Humans and even other animals sometimes live through almost anything.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  10:55 pm
Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi on paragraph 5

It sounds kinda crazy, but I agree that it might actually be possible for men to bear children…there’s the down side of being…you know, DEAD.

But upwards of that, wow. I mean…all they might really need is in vitro..and some way to INJECT the fertilized egg.

Wow. I bet when I’m in my 50’s I’ll see pregnant men (!!) walking down the street. And hopefully, the danger of cancer would have been eliminated, but only for its role to be efficiently overtaken by SARS. What a bleak (bright?) future.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  9:44 pm
Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi on the whole section

What really makes this occurrence…harrowing is that once there is placental growth, the mother MUST carry out the pregnancy to term. This really means that she doesn’t even have a chance…once she’s pregnancy, there’s a very real chance that she could die.

When you first related this story to us in class…I was totally astounded.

Wow. How the body compensates!

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  9:35 pm
Kishan on the whole section

First off this woman and baby are very lucky to be alive. But men being able bear children is totally unlogical, even if the doctor or somehow the egg fertilized over the man’s liver it could kill him and the baby. And this may be a stupid question, but where is the baby going to pop out of.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  2:43 pm
Kristal Jackson on the whole section

I saw this story on Discovery health. My jaw was on the floor while I watched. I’m so glad that you posted this up here!

I think it’s pretty awesome that a baby can develop pretty much anywhere in the abdomen. I guess this means that my aunt can get a second chance at having a kid. Even though it’s an exciting concept, I’m still wary of the high risks involved. I would have to say no for right now, just because it would be heartbreaking to carry a baby full term and then have it die.

Males having babies? I say go for it. Maybe if enough males carry babies they’ll stop complaining about pregnant women. Women have been having babies for thousands of years. Everyone should get a shot at it.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  2:31 pm
Stephen on the whole section

I think that the most interesting thing about this situation is the fact that it opened my eyes to the fact that men can carry babies. sweet!!! i agree with isha i think that as long as there is a steady flow of nutrients provided for the infant than they can live. becuase the baby grows in the uterus it houses it and provides protection for them and the only thing about it being on the liver of this lady is that it might not have the protection it would in the uterus. stephen out.

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  2:25 pm
Isha Banerjea on the whole section

I think if anyone in any part of their body has a steady supply of blood, nutrients, hormones, and a means for supplying the embryo with gases and a waste exist, a baby could survive. As long as the embryo is protected and being supplied all of its necessities to ensure development, the baby has no reason not to develop successfully. Although, it might be a terrifying thought for men, it may be possible to have a baby, given adequate levels of hormones. Science fair, boys?

go to thread »
Posted February 29, 2008  7:40 am
scienceguru replies to Neil on the whole section

Definitely. That happens sometimes even when the embryo implants in utero.

Could the body possibly reject the fetus if it were in the wrong place because it's seen as a "foreign" object?

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  10:50 pm
scienceguru replies to Sara Lacock on the whole section

The literature I was able to find did not indicate that the mother had damage to any other organs. It truly is amazing that she did not hemorrhage to death!

Did Cwayita have any damage to surrounding organs? As big as babies get, they are much better fit for a womb/uterus than randomly somewhere inside someone's body. There are probably not as many organs, and a wide space in the lower abdomen for a reason. It doesn't seem likely that future occurances of this will be sucessful.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  10:50 pm
scienceguru replies to Neil on the whole section

She did not have access to good prenatal care. Had she been able to get to a doctor on a regular basis, it is highly likely that the baby would have been removed from her body much earlier on, and that the baby would not have survived.

If an ectopic pregnancy is so dangerous and is rarely allowed to proceed, why was this allowed? Did they just not know until they went to deliver her? I would imagine there would be some signs that something is wrong throughout the 39 weeks.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  10:48 pm
David Golynskiy replies to Sara Lacock on the whole section

I was also wondering about the surrounding organs and I couldn’t come up with anything viable. If this is so dangerous for the mother and baby, then what happened here? Why is it that both the mother and the baby seem perfectly healthy.

Also, if this is observed in somebody early enough, what must happen to fix it? Is it simple to take the fertilized egg cell and implant in the uterus or along the fallopian tubes.

Did Cwayita have any damage to surrounding organs? As big as babies get, they are much better fit for a womb/uterus than randomly somewhere inside someone's body. There are probably not as many organs, and a wide space in the lower abdomen for a reason. It doesn't seem likely that future occurances of this will be sucessful.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  9:41 pm
Joshua Geevarghese on the whole section

wow i have to say that. this could lead into some miraculous discovery in Biology. but i have to say i dont want to see men bearing a child, i am pretty sure that there will be willing to do that, men bearing child that doesnt sound right

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  9:12 pm
David Golynskiy on the whole section

Well, I feel I must comment on men bieng able to carry babies. First of all, its not ganna happen. Primarily because men don’t adaptations to bear young what so ever (no hormones for fetal development). Second of all, someone would have to implant that embryo in the male……? (Not happening) However, I am interested in the idea that women that are unable to have children for any reason, have a chance now. But, this could also create problems with foster children. If more people will be able have kids then less kids will be adopted, might this be an important issue?

Anyway, in conclusion, I like bieng a guy and I don’t feel like bieng pregnant…… ever! =)

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  7:17 pm
Neil on the whole section

Could the body possibly reject the fetus if it were in the wrong place because it’s seen as a “foreign” object?

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  7:13 pm
Neil replies to Sara Lacock on the whole section

maybe they just got lucky and her liver and surrounding organs were able to adapt.

Did Cwayita have any damage to surrounding organs? As big as babies get, they are much better fit for a womb/uterus than randomly somewhere inside someone's body. There are probably not as many organs, and a wide space in the lower abdomen for a reason. It doesn't seem likely that future occurances of this will be sucessful.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  7:10 pm
The Ger Bear replies to ethan nelson on the whole section

Ethically, Ethan has a good point. It’s wonderful to know that babies that were formed in places other than the uterus have survived, but I think those births are miracles in themselves. To risk the life of a person when the chances of surviving are low would be foolish and selfish.

is it safe for us to even think about birthing other places than the womb. i mean the statistics speak for themselves it isn't safe and therefore it shouldn't be tried unless some serious time and research are put into this i don't think it would be advisable.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  6:27 pm
The Ger Bear replies to Angie on the whole section

The idea of implanting an egg in a male’s liver had never crossed my mind. Even so, I shudder to think at the exit of the child, and I question if it’s even possible. We’re not seahorses.

This could mean men would be able to bear children but it probably isn't advisable. There is a reason ectopic pregnancies aren't allowed to proceed, it can be very dangerous to both mother(father?) and child. A fertilized egg can be implanted on a male's liver or other highly vascular organ and with a lot of hormone therapy a baby could develop to full term as Nhlahla did but because it could be possible doesn't mean people should do it. I don't believe our society is ready for men giving birth.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  6:22 pm
Sara Lacock replies to Prerak Patel on the whole section

Did Cwayita have any damage to surrounding organs? As big as babies get, they are much better fit for a womb/uterus than randomly somewhere inside someone’s body. There are probably not as many organs, and a wide space in the lower abdomen for a reason. It doesn’t seem likely that future occurances of this will be sucessful.

I wonder why there is a gap between the Fallopian tube and the ovaries. What purpose does it serve? I do not believe that babies should develop outside of the uterus simply because the uterus is designed for developing a child and the liver is not. Delivering a baby in this manner could have adverse affects on the organs surrounding the liver as well as the liver itself due to extra pressure. The fetus would also consume resources that would normally be delivered to other organs, like a tumor, possibly leading to even more damage.

go to thread »
Posted February 28, 2008  6:20 pm
Kaitlin on the whole section

Prior to this lecture, I was unawar that the ovaries were not completely connected to the fallopian tubes. In this way, an egg might be able to ascend into the body. The embryo was able to develop on the womans liver probably because of its vascular nature and availability of nutrients.

And if men CAN carry babies, AMEN.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  7:50 pm
Prerak Patel on the whole section

I wonder why there is a gap between the Fallopian tube and the ovaries. What purpose does it serve? I do not believe that babies should develop outside of the uterus simply because the uterus is designed for developing a child and the liver is not. Delivering a baby in this manner could have adverse affects on the organs surrounding the liver as well as the liver itself due to extra pressure. The fetus would also consume resources that would normally be delivered to other organs, like a tumor, possibly leading to even more damage.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  7:23 pm
Neil on paragraph 3

The uterus is designed to house a growing fetus. Does the liver have appropriate mechanical characteristics to allow for implantation and growth?

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  7:15 pm
sussana elkassih on the whole section

I can see how the baby would have been able to develop on the liver since a lot of blood passes through the liver. Yes, it would be amazing to see a pregnant man walking around and experience how it feels to have a child, but I’m against any progress towards developing a technique for male pregnancy. If entopic pregnancies are dangerous for a female and her child, then one can be sure to think that an entopic pregnancy for a male and his child would be dangerous. Even if a technique was developed, just imagine the side effects for the male after the pregnancy or in other words risky surgery. Plus would men genetically have the physical body type and composition to hold a baby? For example consider the way women have most of their body fat concentrated at their hips, butt, and thighs which is necessary for being able to hold the stress of delivery. Hopefully, if a technique was developed it would be used for women who have had hysterectomies and would like to continue to have children or even women who are sterile, but I can definitely see that this type of pregnancy would be attractive to those women who like to undergo various plastic surgeries to stay young since this type of pregnancy would not leave any permanent damage to the womb.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  7:13 pm
Neil on the whole section

If an ectopic pregnancy is so dangerous and is rarely allowed to proceed, why was this allowed? Did they just not know until they went to deliver her? I would imagine there would be some signs that something is wrong throughout the 39 weeks.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  7:08 pm
Sara Lacock on the whole section

The idea of implanting an egg in a man is a bit like Frankenstein creating a monster. Men obviously weren’t made to carry children, and we should not meddle in what was not meant to be. Although it would be amusing…

You said in class that women have wider pelvises for child-bearing. This could be a problem if a man wanted to carry a baby, but it wouldn’t be able to fit.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  5:49 pm
Sara Lacock on paragraph 3

Since eggs are fertilized in the fallopian tubes, where would they be fertilized if they instead travel to another place in the abdomen? Would they be fertilized just outside the fallopian tubes or where they implant? And what causes the egg to implant somewhere…or how does it “stick”?

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  5:45 pm
Kelsey Wise on the whole section

I don’t think that it’s possible that men would be able to bear children regardless of these findings because they don’t have right hormones or body-types, even if they could bear a child on the liver or another organ. Also, I agree that more research would have to be done regarding assumingly *sterile* women to have children with this kind of process.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  5:31 pm
Jocelynn on the whole section

I believe women who have hysterectomies where they only have their fillopian tubes tied are still capable of getting pregnant. It is of course a very low possibility considering only 14 documented cases of the egg fertilizing on the liver. Men cannot bear children this way because an egg cannot travel into a man’s urethra. If men’s organs accepted eggs and women passed them through the vagina during intercourse a man could potentially develope a baby somewhere inside the abdomen.

go to thread »
Posted February 27, 2008  2:30 pm
Bonnie on the whole section

Simply because a small number of pregnancies outside of the uterus were a success does not mean that it is advisable to begin this as a practice. About one in fifty pregnancies results in an ectopic pregnancy, almost all of which must be aborted immediately. Going under the radar, an ectopic pregnancy can have very serious and life threatening consequences. I believe the risks of carrying a child outside of the uterus are too great to chance. The odds of implantation on a highly vascular organ such as the liver are not very high.

go to thread »
Posted February 26, 2008  10:13 pm
Aadil Sarfani on paragraph 5

It seems like there is every possibility that women with hysterectomies might some day be able to have babies. The way science and medicine is progressing, I wouldn’t doubt that some day this will definitely be possible. I think this would be advisable as long as they were able to reduce the rate of unsuccessful births.

go to thread »
Posted February 26, 2008  9:17 pm
Kaston Murrell on the whole section

I don’t think that growing babies in places other than the uterus would be advisable. While it is possible, typical ectopic pregnancies cannot be allowed to proceed because the growing cell mass can damage maternal internal structures. Women with hysterectomies and men probably shouldn’t have babies grow on their livers, intestines, or other highly vascular areas due to the sheer risk involved.

go to thread »
Posted February 26, 2008  5:51 pm
Brandi Manthei on the whole section

If a man was given the right hormones it certainly is possible based on this data for a man to carry a child. The same thing for the women with hysterectomies. The only thing about the women who are sterile is that they could not use their own eggs for the baby. If another woman donated her eggs then it is possible but I don’t see the difference between that and adopting.

go to thread »
Posted February 26, 2008  5:01 pm
ethan nelson on the whole section

is it safe for us to even think about birthing other places than the womb. i mean the statistics speak for themselves it isn’t safe and therefore it shouldn’t be tried unless some serious time and research are put into this i don’t think it would be advisable.

go to thread »
Posted February 25, 2008  6:11 pm
ethan nelson on paragraph 5

i think it may be possible for men to bear children this way however after the birth would the men have the necissary “facilities” to care for the baby? also they would never be able to give birth the normal way that women do becuase their hip structure is no suited for it and lets face it there isn’t an opening big enough.

go to thread »
Posted February 25, 2008  6:07 pm
Ty Vessels on the whole section

This miraculous event opens a lot of doors for women in certain situations and begs allot of questions. While amazing these pregnancies can be highly dangerous to both parent and child. Before doctors use methods to enable people who couldn’t normally be pregnant to carry a child allot more needs to be researched and thought out.

go to thread »
Posted February 25, 2008  4:07 pm
Andrea Deschenes on the whole section

Although I would much LOVE to see a male have to suffer through child birth I agree with what Angie said it is probably not the best idea.
I honestly don’t think that it was just luck though that the baby was able to survive. The liver is a very vascular organ and has good nurishment and blood supply and actually does provide a good environment for a fetus to develop. However i don’t think that using the liver as an allternative to a womb in women is a good idea. The womb is there specifially for that job of nurtering a fetus, and the liver is not.
I don’t think it would do any harm though to research the chances for women with sterility problems to perhaps some day, in the future, have a chance at delivering a baby who developed via the liver rather a womb.

go to thread »
Posted February 24, 2008  1:02 pm
Angie on the whole section

This could mean men would be able to bear children but it probably isn’t advisable. There is a reason ectopic pregnancies aren’t allowed to proceed, it can be very dangerous to both mother(father?) and child. A fertilized egg can be implanted on a male’s liver or other highly vascular organ and with a lot of hormone therapy a baby could develop to full term as Nhlahla did but because it could be possible doesn’t mean people should do it. I don’t believe our society is ready for men giving birth.

go to thread »
Posted February 19, 2008  8:22 pm