Author Topic: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)  (Read 73489 times)

DeDanann

  • Tinker
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • Pooka's Tales
Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« on: August 30, 2007, 11:44:27 pm »
There are always twits like that. I can see the gov. trying to get some of their people turned, but I don't think It would be practical for them. They would lose more people than stayed alive, when it would be easier just to hire werewolves, or find weres that are already working for them and transfer them to another unit or task force or whatever. It would be a much more rational plan.
Did you know, Spryte that the US had trouble absorbing the returning troops from WWII back?  The government had EXPECTED an attrition rate so much higher than happened because of first the Russian push & second, the collapse of Japanese resistance after the bombs were dropped that they weren't prepared to deal with the live young men coming home.
Do you really believe that people who think sending others out to die for 'honor' would really care if they only got back one in ten?  Or one in twenty?

On a different note, I was reading the Bran & Leah debate, & it occurred to me to wonder: if a woman was 8 months pregnant & attacked by a werewolf, what would it do to her baby?  She might die & the baby live, but would it be were?

Good question about the baby.  Drugs or alcohol ingested by the mother can harm a baby in utero, although in the case of diseases, the mother's system often protects the baby.  That's not always the case, though, and sometimes the baby is born with the disease or is affected by it. :-\  I imagine the werewolf attack would bring on early labor or the baby would be taken by C-section because the mom is so close to death, so...would they get the baby out before the virus/magic of the werewolf reached the baby's bloodstream?  No clue.  Depends on how fast it spreads through the system.  And isn't there some question of surviving one's first change anyway?  The little girl surviving was rare enough, and Charles is the only person we know who was a baby were.  Really, really good question.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 09:51:50 pm by Elle »

Patti L.

  • Administrator
  • Hostess of Hurog
  • *
  • Posts: 12619
  • Not PattY Briggs. Keeper of the fluffy vortex.
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2007, 08:02:09 am »
That's what I thought.  And I envision two antiethical scenarios (Ooh, I'm pulling all the fancy words out of storage today! :D)
1. The werewolf, either crazy, perhaps with age or a demon influencing it, attacks a healthy woman, perhaps because she's too close to him, in his territory.  In which case the baby may be in danger of being attacked too, even if the mother somehow goes straight into more or less normal labor. ( I'm thinking of a friend of a sister here, who had about her 4th child between her husband calling 9-1-1 and the operator trying to get him to find something sanitary to tie the umbilical cord.  Someone whose body is adapted to birth.)
2. The woman is already in mortal danger.  Cancer, kidney failure & no transplant possible, car accident, shot, whatever.  The werewolf, maybe a doctor like Sam, makes a desperate effort to save one or both the way that Bran saved Charles' mother.
It's a leap year. Sanity is in short supply.  You can't have mine.

jenniwee

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 08:51:18 am »
I like that we keep trying to think of ways to have baby weres!

I wondered what would happen if a female were changed into her wolf form as soon as she knew she was pregnant.  In A&O, Charles says that women miscarry in the 3rd or 4th month, which is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant.  (I do a test whenever I'm a day late, and whenever I'm a day late, I'm pregnant).  So, if the miscarriage doesn't occur until the baby gets larger than a few cells, then why couldn't the female were change and remain in wolf form for the remainder of her pregnancy?

DeDanann

  • Tinker
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • Pooka's Tales
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 01:53:01 pm »
I like that we keep trying to think of ways to have baby weres!

I wondered what would happen if a female were changed into her wolf form as soon as she knew she was pregnant.  In A&O, Charles says that women miscarry in the 3rd or 4th month, which is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant.  (I do a test whenever I'm a day late, and whenever I'm a day late, I'm pregnant).  So, if the miscarriage doesn't occur until the baby gets larger than a few cells, then why couldn't the female were change and remain in wolf form for the remainder of her pregnancy?

That's what I've always wondered, too.  I mean, the full moon each month forces a were to change to wolf form, but I've never heard of the opposite being true.  They're not compelled to change to human form.  So other than the fact that the were would be in wolf form for nine months straight, I'm not sure why she couldn't carry to term in wolf form.  Presumably the baby would develop into its wolf form in utero and be born a cub?  The only major concern my husband and I could think of when discussing this topic is whether being in wolf form for so long would make it hard for the woman to change back after it's all over.  (They were worried about Ben when he stayed in wolf form for so long after his encounter with the sorcerer, but that might easily have just been due to his depression.)

Good Mazoku

  • lovebird
  • Tool Wrangler
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
  • Faint heart never won fair lady.
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2007, 02:28:13 pm »
I think the real issue is: how can the woman know if the baby is a were or is human? If the baby is human, I think it's hardly likely that the pregnancy can be brought to term even in wolf form (thus avoiding to change back). On the other hand, even if the baby is going to be a were, will he develop in wolf form just 'cos the mother changed to wolf or will the baby stay human? If the latter is our case, the problem still remains.
Crazy Cat Lady on the loose. Beware.


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

DeDanann

  • Tinker
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • Pooka's Tales
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2007, 02:55:17 pm »
I think the real issue is: how can the woman know if the baby is a were or is human? If the baby is human, I think it's hardly likely that the pregnancy can be brought to term even in wolf form (thus avoiding to change back). On the other hand, even if the baby is going to be a were, will he develop in wolf form just 'cos the mother changed to wolf or will the baby stay human? If the latter is our case, the problem still remains.

Well, we know that the child of a were and a human can be either human or were.  But what about the child of two weres?  The only one we know is Charles, and he was born were.  Though it didn't say in exactly what form he was born, only that his mother didn't survive it because she was too weak.   ???
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 02:57:33 pm by DeDanann »

Elle

  • Lone Wolf
  • Administrator
  • Senior Pack Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2007, 06:51:10 pm »
The only major concern my husband and I could think of when discussing this topic is whether being in wolf form for so long would make it hard for the woman to change back after it's all over.  (They were worried about Ben when he stayed in wolf form for so long after his encounter with the sorcerer, but that might easily have just been due to his depression.)

I love that you had such a great discussion with your husband about this. :D It's like when my friends and I sit over coffee and discuss what zombies would do in such and such a situation. We're all like...oh...it's not the nature of a zombie to react like this...

Back on topic though. :) I think you hit the nail on the head about the difficulty in changing back. I think that any werewolf if they allow the wolf to have more control than their human side would run into problems in any scenario. That's the problem, I think with most new weres and why they're killed by the pack, the human can't control the wolf. So putting yourself in a situation where you relinquish the reins to wolf would be a bad thing.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 07:03:52 pm by Elle »
Hurog Means Dragon.

Zealith

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Pack Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2140
    • dragcaves
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2007, 01:38:08 pm »
And isn't there some question of surviving one's first change anyway?  The little girl surviving was rare enough, and Charles is the only person we know who was a baby were.  Really, really good question.

I'm pretty sure it isn't the first change, I think it's serviving the attack that causes problems.

Faellie

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2007, 10:36:40 am »
In A&O, Charles says that women miscarry in the 3rd or 4th month, which is plenty of time to realize that you're pregnant.

In MC, page 97, it's said "Werewolf women miscarry at the first full moon".  So it looks as though there's a bit of a discrepancy between MC and A&O?

Spryte

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
  • Wheeeeeeeeee!
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2007, 04:12:09 pm »
I'm more inclined to trust the MC version than the Charles version... he really isn't versed in the ways of women. *Spryte laughs appreciatively*
« Last Edit: September 08, 2007, 04:09:58 pm by Spryte »
We never really grow up, we just learn how to act in public... for the most part...

Rob

  • lovebird
  • Tinker
  • *****
  • Posts: 64
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2007, 04:56:50 pm »
Just a thought...but the problem with staying in wolf form once the woman finds herself pregnant may be a magical one.  It was never said in the books but being a fan of many genres involving shapeshifting, I have read several stories where the longer a shifter is in another form the harder it is to change back.

If not that, there is the mental aspect.  Fighting the wolf's control for that amount of time would be very difficult.  I think the reason Sam was able to to take back control so quickly (in MC) was a combination of the wolf relaxing because it was happy to have Mercy back and because he is supposed to be an old (couple hundred years is old) and powerful werewolf.

Enough with the negative, though, here's a possability...it being this day and age, could artificial means and/or surrogacy work?  If so, would the were-virus/magic be passed on to the child with the rest of the parents' genes?
Proud member of the Maulers Union Local #182.

jenniwee

  • Mechanic
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2007, 07:14:49 pm »
I don't think you could use a surrogate or anything for weres. 

As I understand it the main problem with were/human reproduction is the human females inability to carry a child that is part were.  The body rejects it as genetically "bad" and miscarries.  So the only fully human children are born. 

A female were could carry a were child, if the transformation didn't cause her to miscarry.

So, a surrogate would encounter the same issues as a woman mated to a were.  So maybe if you had lots of test tube babies and could figure out which of those were were and which were human it might work.  However, knowing people who have tried to do this sort of thing to influence things like gender, the technology doesn't work that well.  And it's kinda scary that it exists.

Kiersten Walks Funny

  • Tool Wrangler
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Wannabe Supernatural Creature
    • http://www.myspace.com/kittykitty66
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2007, 07:17:42 pm »
yeah i dont think it would really do any better for a surrogate mother.


courtesy of Has

We all know these books are real, we just don't want to face it because the government keeps it all hidden.

Morgaine0000

  • Grease Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2007, 10:34:18 pm »
I think a surrogate would work, but the trick would be figuring out which embryo's were "fully human".   Maybe a witch or some other supernatural type could tell.   But, in the case of Sam, I don't think he really wanted more human children.  I think he wanted the chance of a child born werewolf like Charles, so that he wouldn't have to face their dying of the change or of old age. 

Patti L.

  • Administrator
  • Hostess of Hurog
  • *
  • Posts: 12619
  • Not PattY Briggs. Keeper of the fluffy vortex.
Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2007, 10:39:37 pm »
Next question then; knowing how Sam feels, & having (presumably) been taught by his shaman grandfather, why hasn't Charles helped ensure a living child for him?  Is it because he's waiting for Sam to ask?  Or is it because he's sure it would kill the mother, just as it did his?  Does he refuse to make the exchange?  Or did he not get that education, & that's why it isn't a consideration?  Shamanism, like chieftanship, doesn't naturally follow a blood relationship, as I understand it.
It's a leap year. Sanity is in short supply.  You can't have mine.