. and perhaps 30 percent never became pregnant

Correct. See my reply further downthread.

ED: but many have none

On reflection, my wording was too harsh for what was a simple misreading on your part. But just to be clear: some recipients have multiple children. Some have just one. But most have none, and the most common reason is rejection of the transplant. They don't even try IVF until they're certain the transplant isn't being rejected (traditionally at least a 12 month wait, though times have been dropping). 25-30% of transplants fail before IVF can be attempted. Each IVF cycle has ~50% odds for a young woman, dropping significantly with age. Also, this is a relatively new procedure, so a meaningful minority of people who have ever gotten womb transplants are yet to have children.

While the numbers born thusfar are small, at least thusfar in the data, there is no statistical difference in the health of children born to transplanted wombs vs. non-transplanted.

Do I understand right that this basically comes down to religious interference in people's lives?

It's not religious-based at all (we're one of the least religious countries on Earth - religious people generally love surrogacy). It's seen as like sex trafficking.

That's about a 33 percent failure rate

Do I seriously need to explain to you how to read English? Or in your mind, is there some law that says "one womb transplant = one birth"?

From the article, about a third of the children resulting from this are not healthy births

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The sentence:

More than 100 womb transplant operations have been performed around the world and more than 70 healthy babies have been born as a result.

... does not mean what you seem to think it means.

As was pointed out, not lifelong - and also, FYI, surrogacy is not only very expensive and leaves you without the experience of having carried your child, but it's also illegal in many places.

People have been having children while on immunosuppressants since cortisone was released in 1949. Many millions of children. The science supports that having children while on immunosuppressants is safe for the child. And I guarantee you, this is the first thing everyone looking into this procedure asks themselves, as well as every doctor, nurse and researcher in the field.

Amusing comment ;) But from a more serious perspective: uterus transplants from living donors are much easier, but they're also in much lower supply.

I mean, this is still a new, expensive, and risky procedure (anything involving transplants is, it means being on immunosuppressants). But overall, yeah. So many people still have this misperception that this is the world of 50 years ago and there's hundreds of millions of young, healthy, neglected kids out there in the world just waiting for an adoptive parent, and it's just not true. Adoption is nonsensically slow and difficult. Right now, the world doesn't need more adoptive parents, it needs more kids.

Also, beyond having a kid that is genetically yours, we also tend to glaze over the issues with adoptive kids. There are large groups of former-adoptees out there who want to ban adoption, seeing it as basically child trafficking that crushes mothers who feel compelled due to their situation to give up their children and children knowing that they were treated like property ("shopped", "paid for"), and having all connection with their past broken (including things that matter a lot, like for example, knowing what genetic diseases you may be likely to develop with time and what treatments worked with your genetic parents).

I've looked into the science, and it's mixed, but there are genuine concerns. Very, very few people in the real world can, emotionally, carry a child to term and then just walk off and be totally fine with abandoning them. Regret is extremely common, sometimes very deep regret. And with the children, the worst results are the more you hide from them and the more you restrict them. The best results come from what adoptive parents generally don't want to do: sharing. Meeting with the birth parents as much as possible / as much as they want to (if it's safe to do so). Not hiding a single thing from the child, even from a young age. Letting the child fully grok - instead of you just telling them - that the situation with their birth parent(s) genuinely was not good and they genuinely either didn't feel fit to raise a child or were not capable of it. The worst case is that your adoptive child grows up mad at you for the secrecy - or any other "normal" reason - tracks down their genetic parents (which is easier than ever before), has a deeply emotional reunion with them (and any extended family - grandparents, siblings, cousins, etc etc) and is furious at you for the rest of your life for having taken them away.

Also, some additional notes:

In some countries (including mine, Iceland), surrogacy is illegal. You cannot legally pay someone to have a child for you if you can't bear one yourself. And of course if you do, you not only face legal liability, but they won't recognize the child as yours.

Also, for anyone who has not done it, raising a child that doesn't see you as their mother (I was with someone for several years who had two children from a previous marriage) is - at least it was in my experience - horrible. No matter what you do for them, you will never be loved by them in the same way they do their biological mother. You're always second class, just a playmate and servant. I'll never forget one night when the little girl was scared of the dark and started calling out "Mommy! Mommy!" And I rushed in to try to comfort her, but she kept calling out, "No, I want MY mommy!" and I couldn't console her. Just heartbreaking - it makes me cry just writing this. Never again for me.

Ah, I see you're pushing anti-people propaganda. You want cities built for buses and bikes, not for people.

Here's a nice overview article from urbanists: https://archive.strongtowns.or...

Cars are superior to every other transit mode for commutes. It's a simple fact. They are faster, more convenient, and don't require spending time in the company of fentanyl addicts. Or wasting entire lifetimes every day waiting for bus to arrive.

ED: That the original author of the thread, the one I was responding to, wrote "attacking others for fun".

That's not how the real world works. Try having a child, or a dog, and see how far you get claiming you're not responsible for what they do.

You can try to pretend that you never said the lie that the author set up the bot to "attack others for fun", but everyone reading this thread can read it.

If you have a better way to estimate how much human/AI spoofing is going on

That is not how any of this works. You can't throw out a garbage, not-even-understanding-how-agents-work "methodology" that is guaranteed to return fake, grossly-overinflated numbers, and then act like we should just accept fake, grossly-overinflated numbers until someone gives you a better methodology.

That's like if someone wrote up a methodology for calculating the popularity of based on flour sales on the assumption that the reason that everyone buys flour is to make torchietti and reaching the assumption that everyone eats homemade torchietti every day - and then when pointed out that this assumption is nonsense, you demand to keep using the "everyone eats torchietti every day" result until someone gives you a better methodology. Bullshit remains bullshit.

TL/DR, you have nothing, made some bad assumptions, and now don't want to admit it.