The Hurog Family

Patricia Briggs' Books => The Weres => Mercy's Garage: General Series Topics & Themes Board => Topic started by: DeDanann on August 30, 2007, 11:44:27 pm

Title: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DeDanann 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: jenniwee 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?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DeDanann 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.)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Good Mazoku 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DeDanann 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.   ???
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Elle 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Faellie 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?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte 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*
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Rob 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?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: jenniwee 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kiersten Walks Funny on October 15, 2007, 07:17:42 pm
yeah i dont think it would really do any better for a surrogate mother.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Morgaine0000 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. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. 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.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Pink Elephants on October 16, 2007, 03:51:08 am
I never thought about Charles' grandfather. for some reason I think he died before Charles really got to know him.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: jenniwee on October 16, 2007, 08:24:38 am
From Charles reaction in A&O, I got the feeling the whole subject is a sore spot for him.  He doesn't want to tell the story and when he does he tells it like a folk story that he has been told all his life, not like it's his own history.  I think he's really ambivalent about how to feel about it.  His mom died to have him, his father wanted her to stop so she wouldn't die (which would have effectively killed him) and he is now a legend among weres.  I don't think he would risk the life of another woman just so his brother could have a kid.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kiersten Walks Funny on October 16, 2007, 12:34:03 pm
yeah i think its a very sore spot for charles and i don't think that sam really would want for his mate to die either, hes too nice.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: jenglows on October 16, 2007, 02:01:43 pm
I think Sam just wants more children, preferably were, but I think he says something somewhere that the medical resources are so much better now that he feels like his children would have a better chance to survive. I think most of them were killed by disease, right?  That doesn't happen these days with the same frequency as a few hundred years ago..
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Iris101 on October 16, 2007, 02:04:01 pm
I think that thats ALL that Sam wants though.  And even if it is better, I dont think it would change anything because the changes are still going to be just as violent.  Unless they want to get a seraget mother, but then his mate wouldnt have a blood relation would she?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kiersten Walks Funny on October 18, 2007, 04:24:21 pm
i dont think thats all sam wants, i think he really does love and want mercy
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: malika on March 09, 2008, 05:37:52 pm
Not just Leah. Remember, Adam told Mercy something about how Honey fights dirty, since she can't really fight fair if she's a female and smaller than the males. Same with human females in most cases, too.... If you can't win by brute strength, cunning and viciousness is the only way you can win.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lightning on August 03, 2009, 04:58:07 am
i know that female weres can't have kids but what about using surrogates?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 27, 2009, 07:25:25 pm
Okay, this isn't exactly about MERCY and children, but about werewolves & children in general.
Deadfrog said:
Maybe those werewolves who want children very much actually do adopt children. We have not really seen many werewolves so far that miss having children and family. Sam is one such case. He still wants a family despite the pain that might follow. Other old wolves might simply have decided that they are better off without family outside of their pack because it is too painful for them to see their children grow old and die.

The decision for adoption might not be entirely up to the couple in question, either. There is always the question if the pack's alpha will allow them to adopt a stranger's child. I think it was the Marrok who arranged for Mercy's adoption, not her grandfathers great uncle through which she had some tie to his pack. I don't think that an adoption would have taken place if Bran had objected to Mercy's presence. Some alphas object to pack members forming ties outside of the pack. This would certainly apply to adoptive and foster children, too. Leo is one such example. A pathological example maybe, but still an example. Another example is the alpha of the Emerald City pack. In "Seeing Eye", this was given as a reason that Tom went for outside help in locating his missing brother.   

We need to keep a couple of things in mind about adoption & fostering children.

1. it's only in about the past 50 years that those have been regulated to death.
2. werewolves who weren't out would very likely have had a bit of trouble meeting criteria to adopt or foster in the past 20 years or so, but not before.
3.  Can we say "Mariposa"?  Yes, in other words the wolves of hundreds of years ago had no problem with fostering.

Now that the wolves (some of them) are out, they'll very possibly end up on one end or the other of the "desirability scale" for adoption & fosterage.  Some few social workers, & maybe systems, will go "Score!  Fierce guardians!  Strict disciplinarians!"  Most, alas, will fall noisily onto the other scale, "Monsters, magicals and mutants, oh my!  Not on MY watch, thank you very much."
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ladylynx on October 28, 2009, 09:03:16 am
I figure that some of the other wolves in the various packs might want to adopt children. Because from past experience of hearing stories from other people, including my own mother who couldn't have children of her own. Would give any thing to have children.

 I figure that some of the women and men in the pack would feel the same way. No matter the cost of seeing them grow old and die. If nothing else they might even offer the opportunity to their adopted children of being Were-Wolves themselves. How else would the packs survive without adding new members? At the time the Marrok was very strict on the conditions and secrecy of their existence.   
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: deadfrog on October 28, 2009, 03:51:22 pm
The children would not be part of the pack, no more than human mates are part of the pack. They would be a side project of the wolves in question that is separate from their pack / wolf life.

The Marrok is against forced change. But that does not limit prospective new wolves to children of pack members. Other family members will know. In "Seeing Eye", Tom's brother obviously knew that Tom was a wolf, and Mercy's mother remembered tales about her great-great-uncle the werewolf. And the existence of werewolves was never a secret in the supernatural community, witches and wizards always knew of their existence.

I had forgotten about Mariposa. Thanks for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ladylynx on November 05, 2009, 04:46:01 pm
I think having children as part of a Were's family would be interesting. Sure, you can't go to school and brag that your father is a Were-wolf, but still having  a parent that could turn furry would be interesting to say the least. Lying to them would be hard, because they can smell a lie. If a bunch of bullies picked on you or a  street gang is giving you problems, all you have to do is tell your parent and no more problem.

I bet that where ever there is a pack of wolves, there's no street gangs. I think the pack would put a stop to those street gangs.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lord_Raken on February 03, 2010, 04:43:37 pm
These are from something I posted on another thread. They contain some theories I have.

Is still don't see why its not like that. Even though the child of a werewolf is 100% human they would still carry genetic material from their werewolf father. These recessive genes could have an effect on their chances of surviving the change (good or bad). It makes sense, Genetic disorders can be passed down and even if a child does not demonstrate the disorder (children born human) they can still carry the gene.

People with a family history of cancer are higher risk. This doesn't mean they WILL get cancer but they are more prone to getting it. Why is it not the same with werewolves.

I actually have a hard time with the assertion that these "human" children don't inherit ANYTHING from their immortal parent. I'm betting they have better immune systems, heather hearts, longer life expectancies, and keen social senses. What if the "werewolf" is just burred really deep?

Another question is: So do the children of Werewolves have a greater immunity to the change or a genetic predisposition? I'm leaning toward the latter.

Another thought. If they do indeed have the predisposition, then would they have to suffer as severe an attack as a regular human or could they be changed with lesser wounds?

Going on another tangent: If two people who are the children of or descendants of werewolves have a child could the recessive Genes express themselves and result in a natural born Werewolf? ( I understand that this is unlikely in Mercy's world) I mean, why does the child have to be born with the ability to change? Why couldn't it wait until the child had matures, like making it most of the way through puberty before the wolf traits really start to manifest? Kinda like puberty on steroids... you get all emotional, you're pumped full or hormones, new desires kick in, you get all hairy, and you turn into a monster once a month (ok, bad joke... sorry)

I'll continues in this grove. If a female werewolf miscarries during the first full moon that means it is either the change of the mother that causes the miscarriage or something else. (though the books seem to suggest its the mother's transformation that causes the miscarriage)

I imagine that a fetus one month old is little more than a collection of cells. If the cells try to transform, what would that do to them? What changes? The futus is already growing as fast as it can so its hard to imagine the activity being the culprit. In fact there HAS to be two separate reasons why Were babies don't survive human and Were mothers. Humans: genetic rejection. Weres: ??????????? The genetics match... so what is the problem?

Perhaps they wolves are missing something, some combination or special circumstance? What if there is a stage of evolution that needs to take place? What would cause this evolution? Is the answer in Charles, does he carry something that could solve the issue... does Mercy?

Why do wolves change during the full moon? What triggers the transformation? If its hormones (very likely) then drugs can be used to inhibit the transformation (maybe... they got tranquilizers to work, right?)


I know its long but I think a lot.  :)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Avarel on February 03, 2010, 04:47:20 pm
I seem to recall that the woman aborts any children with werewolf DNA. THAT is why all the children of werewolves are 100% human. the non-human ones don't survive to be born (at this time, at least).
The mother's body can't handle the non-human DNA and kills the child.

So, in my opinion, that explains why children of werewolves don't have a better chance of surviving. there isn't any of the werewolf passed on to them.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lord_Raken on February 03, 2010, 05:14:51 pm
I seem to recall that the woman aborts any children with werewolf DNA. THAT is why all the children of werewolves are 100% human. the non-human ones don't survive to be born (at this time, at least).
The mother's body can't handle the non-human DNA and kills the child.

So, in my opinion, that explains why children of werewolves don't have a better chance of surviving. there isn't any of the werewolf passed on to them.

I bet that most of the Werewolf DNA is human, and that the part that "makes" them Werewolves is actually a very small part of their DNA.o the DNA that allows for better immune system is probably compatible with humans... if it were not it would be IMPOSSIBLE for werewolves to have children with humans. A can have reproduce with a donkey and they get a mule, but a horse can't reproduce with a lion (that's for sure). So the issue is with mixing the DNA of two VERY closely related species. While much of the DNA is compatible there are some issues with combining certain genes that would cause the miscarriages.

Perhaps no Werewolf/Human child is fully human and the miscarriages are just a bad combination of genes... perhaps there has never been a true werewolf fetus that resulted from a Were/Human paring. Maybe The understanding that has prevailed in werewolf society for the past several thousand years has been wrong... (they are way behind on woman's right and the only "research" we've ever seen done on werewolves has been done by humans... perhaps its time for the werewolves to do some research into their own situation)

The only natural born Werewolf is Charles, a result of a wolf/wolf paring. So it would follow that if you could find a way to hold of the change (with drugs or a genetic mutation) werewolf couples could have children.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: berryblu on February 04, 2010, 01:04:56 pm
However, as I suggested in the Jesse thread, being a werewolf does not have to affect the DNA at all.  It is magical after all and can affect the whole person without doing anything to the basic DNA or the sex cells.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lord_Raken on February 04, 2010, 02:56:12 pm
However, as I suggested in the Jesse thread, being a werewolf does not have to affect the DNA at all.  It is magical after all and can affect the whole person without doing anything to the basic DNA or the sex cells.

Well, this now leaves it all up to world mechanics and only the author can really answer the question. Does being a werewolf cause changes in their DNA and can they pass it down to their children. If its all magic then even the werewolf babies would have human DNA and the non magical human mother would have to abort based on magic which she can't feel. If it is DNA then even the human children should get some of the wolf DNA.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: charmed on February 04, 2010, 03:43:41 pm

Well, this now leaves it all up to world mechanics and only the author can really answer the question.

Exactly so. This is purely a speculative thread and only Patty Briggs herself has the answers. We get to take what few nuggets of info she has given us in the various books and use those as the basis for our speculations. One of the fun things about this board, IMO, is being able to speculate and  to try to predict what will happen next. Fun!  bOuNcY
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lord_Raken on February 07, 2010, 10:12:11 am
So, what will happen? Will Mercy be able to bear werewolf cubs? Will they be some odd Hybrid? And, will Mercy ever have children in the course of the series?

Sam could be right, but I think there will be more too it that he theorizes. I literally have no clue what a Walker (if that is what Mercy is) Werewolf hybrid would be like. What if Sam is wrong? What if Mercy is no different from regular humans when it come to bearing werewolf babies (I doubt it... magic can do weird things but SOMETHING ALWAYS happens when you mix magic together)? What if, god forbid, the Werewolf conflicts with the Walker?

If it is shown the Mercy can bear werewolf children then Sam and Adam won't be the only one's interested in her. If word got out EVERY Dominant wolf would come tearing to the Tri-cities ready to do whatever it took to acquire a mate that would allow their Were children to live. No THAT would be an interesting conflict for one of the future books.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 07, 2010, 10:27:20 am
There would likely be some typy of influx, but not EVERY dominant wolf would show up.  Given the whole "all unmated female werewolves 'belong' to the alpha male of the pack" thing, it is possible that most alpha males in packs that have females will pick one of those rare females as his mate.  So, already mated, they're not going to rush off to get into a fight to the death with Adam to get the unwilling Mercy.  Even those Alphas or other dominants with human wives/mates are unlikely to dump them to grab at Mercy.

There would be some, I expect.  Although they might wait until it's been proven, until Mercy & Adam have a child or two that lives at least a year or two, & shows it can change.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lord_Raken on February 07, 2010, 09:31:13 pm
There would likely be some typy of influx, but not EVERY dominant wolf would show up.  Given the whole "all unmated female werewolves 'belong' to the alpha male of the pack" thing, it is possible that most alpha males in packs that have females will pick one of those rare females as his mate.  So, already mated, they're not going to rush off to get into a fight to the death with Adam to get the unwilling Mercy.  Even those Alphas or other dominants with human wives/mates are unlikely to dump them to grab at Mercy.

There would be some, I expect.  Although they might wait until it's been proven, until Mercy & Adam have a child or two that lives at least a year or two, & shows it can change.

True, I doubt "every" wolf would come running to fight for Mercy, but there would be a few. A point: I doubt the kind of wolves who would be willing to kill to get Mercy would care about dumping their current mate and many would try to have mercy and their old mate. (is there something in the books about an Alpha with multiple mates? Don't the Alphas in regular wolf packs have more than one mate?)

Any who... I guess its never been questioned if Mercy can have children at all so I think its probably safe to assume that, at the least, she is like every other human female when it comes to the children of Werewolves and , at the very most, the progenitor of a new breed of Werewolves.... though I;m guessing Mercy will be somewhere in the middle when it comes to the nature of her children.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 07, 2010, 09:35:35 pm
This is the Mercy and children question area, I think.  No reason from either side of Mercy's heritage that she couldn't have children, and no, wolves are monogamous for life.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Elle on February 07, 2010, 09:48:36 pm
Any who... I guess its never been questioned if Mercy can have children at all so I think its probably safe to assume that, at the least, she is like every other human female when it comes to the children of Werewolves and , at the very most, the progenitor of a new breed of Werewolves.... though I;m guessing Mercy will be somewhere in the middle when it comes to the nature of her children.

Sorry guys, you're both in the wrong area. I guess I need to alter the subject line a bit.

This is actually "oops, I got impregnated by a werewolf, what happens next thread" but that was too long to fit there. ;)

If you want to discuss the possibility of Mercy having children it's 3 or 4 threads below this one. Lots of speculation and theories going on there. You can find it here (http://hurog.com/forum/index.php?topic=352.0).
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ladylynx on April 12, 2010, 05:57:25 pm
I don't know if this thought has been brought up yet, but couldn't the female Were-Wolf just remain in her Wolf form till it is time for the baby to be born and then shift back into her human form?

Also, is there a time limit or restriction to how long a Were-Wolf can remain in their wolf form? Cause, I don't think it's ever been said in the books.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 12, 2010, 05:59:03 pm
Yes.  That question has been asked before.
The general feeling seems to be that staying longer in the wolf shape makes the wolf more ascendant, which could be very dangerous.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: YuleRule on May 22, 2010, 05:40:36 pm
Yes.  That question has been asked before.
The general feeling seems to be that staying longer in the wolf shape makes the wolf more ascendant, which could be very dangerous.
You phrased it almost exactly as I thought!

And I think there is some "wolf DNA": Bran's, Charles's, and Sam's wolves are all smart, in different ways.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Loleczka on May 24, 2010, 02:47:20 am
Hey, come from Polish so I immediately apologize for his English.
I tried to read from your posts as much as possible, but I do not know if I succeeded, so if you correct me.
The main reason for losing children by a woman is compelled werewolves change into a wolf when the full, right?
Charles's mother stopped her transformation, but by birth and died, well
I write?
And if werewolves asked the magicians to stop asking for change for 9 months? Does a witch would give advice?
This case makes me very curious and would be grateful if someone replied.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on May 24, 2010, 07:33:21 am
Yes, female werewolves can not carry babies 9 months because of the full moon change of shape.
Blue Jay Woman, Charles' mother, used her peoples magic to stop the change, but it weakened her and she died.
Witches powerful enough to stop the change use black magic, which comes from suffering and death.  This is probably why werewolves have not done this before now.  We do not know from anything Patty has written if it has been tried, or if any witch has been consulted about it.  They probably have done at some time, not all werewolves are nice.
Thank you for asking, I hope this answers you so you understand.  I am not Patty Briggs, so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Loleczka on May 24, 2010, 12:21:25 pm
Patti L. Patti L thank you, that I responded. Brightened a little in my head. I know that you are not Briggs. Once more thank you.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: dee on June 19, 2010, 01:06:47 pm
after reading all these i wonder if there's a way ariana can use fae magic to carry her pregnancy to term.....the fae have the most bizarre magic ever i mean they made a staff that gives a lamb twins.....i'm sure she can strike a deal with a powerful fae that can help them.....dangerous a s it may be  >D :-whistle
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: katla-frej on June 19, 2010, 10:57:03 pm
maybe we have been going at it wrong and the real problem isn't the child surviving the mothers change but it's own? if the child is a born wereeolf it would have to change in the womb as well reight maybe the what saved Charles was that his mother was able to keep both herself and him from changing it would explain why all werewolf children have to be 100% human
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on June 20, 2010, 08:58:08 pm
It could be both, which would explain why miscarriages are common among human wives of werewolves.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ironkitten on June 30, 2010, 05:14:06 pm
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?
Ok, I think that MC is more accurate, because Samuel I think is better versed thatn Charles in the medical. As for Charles his mother used magic to stay human and therefore allowed him to be born. Mercy can stay human and carry to term. I like the idea of fae magic in the fray. But could you see Charles, Anna, Adam and Mercy going to Samuel as the resident medical master for the were's - Hey I'm pregnant, what now??? I think of all the weres that Samuel has researched it to the ends of the earth, is the impression I have. I think since Samuels kids mostly died from the plague and what not that is not the issue anymore. I think it really is the violence of the changes, reaading just the Mercy novels you think well maybe - if they held either shape, but the get more dscriptinve of those changes in A&O with Charles if everything is rearranging then I can't see how the fetus would survive a change. On the flip side Mercy's change involves a magic somewhere of the walkers so I don't think the change applies, thus Sam's interest. Although we have seen stories where Vamps and Weres get together. Alos in everything any of the other authors do for mixed breeds seem to involve magic. Jeez Sam an obgyn that would be funny though.
The other subjects though poses an interesting question attacked in your 8 or 9th month what would happen? That would be interesting.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on July 16, 2010, 06:35:58 am
I just started to read the "so you are a werewolf now" book (dont know the english name) and even there they say that female werewolves cant have children. they die at the first full moon because of the change

but with modern science its possible. take something from the father and the mother, mix it together and get yourself a woman who will try it for you. and this should work...

I´m not done with the whole book but the idea is interesting
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on August 16, 2010, 03:45:13 pm
I can't believe none of us thought of that! :o
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on August 16, 2010, 08:02:17 pm
Surrogate mother I believe has been addressed before on the thread... hasn't it?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on August 16, 2010, 08:06:52 pm
If it hasn't in this thread, it has been elsewhere. I remember it too.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: charmed on August 16, 2010, 08:44:38 pm
It has yes, in a couple different threads I believe.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lissa on September 29, 2010, 01:52:45 am
Is it possible for werewolves to be able to stay in there wolf form for long periods of time. Because i was reading the alpha and omega series when charles tells anna she'll never have kids cause the change is to hard on the fetus. What if the females get pregnant, change and not change back till they have the baby? Could that work or would it make other problems?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on September 29, 2010, 03:57:26 am
I seem to remember (maybe in MC?) Bran remarking that at one point when Sam was pining for Mercy, Sam changed to wolf and stayed wolf for at least a year. Maybe someone can verify that I'm not imagining this. Anyway, I think perhaps the only danger would be that the were could "lose himself" in his wolf, you know, like going native or something.


Not enough information to speculate whether doing something like this would help females carry a fetus to term.



bj
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Letitia on September 29, 2010, 06:33:03 am
They can stay wolf for as long as they want... But at some point, they lose their human selves to their wolf selves. The longer they're wolf - the more wolfy they become. They can forget how to change back, or lose the desire to ever become human again.

About pregnancy, as soon as the female found out she was pregnant - in human form - if she shifted to wolf, the fetus would probably be lost. So I don't think staying wolf would help. Charles' mom stayed human to avoid even one change to wolf and fighting the natural change weakened and killed her...

So staying in either form for a werewolf is detrimental.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on September 29, 2010, 06:53:55 am
They can stay wolf for as long as they want... But at some point, they lose their human selves to their wolf selves. The longer they're wolf - the more wolfy they become. They can forget how to change back, or lose the desire to ever become human again.


Do you have any passages from the book that will back that up? Because that was my impression too, but I don't remember ever actually reading it.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Letitia on September 29, 2010, 09:42:33 am
It's in Silver Borne... I believe it's something Bran or Adam says to Mercy... I'll see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ElefiNecol on September 29, 2010, 12:36:25 pm
I believe you are referring to Mercy's conversation with Charles..

Quote
He'll grow tired and more hungry than usual.  He'll slowly lose the chains that Samuel forged to control him, but all that will be left is a ravenous beast.  A new wolf, a whole wolf in charge, kills easily and often, but usually there is a reason for it, even if that reason is that he doesn't like the way his victim smell. SB-140

There is a bit more to it, but that is the main section.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on September 29, 2010, 02:29:09 pm
Thank you. I thought that was simply refering to which was in control, not which form they were using.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: dee on September 30, 2010, 03:00:16 am
i thought that was referring to when a werewolf is losing control and are suicidal....that they eventually turn into a ravenous beast then at some point drop dead....
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lissa on September 30, 2010, 03:45:35 am
Allright lets throw this one out there :) lets say that the women gets pregnant while wolf, doesnt change till she gives birth then changes to human. What would the end result be? And lets throw in there that the female werewolf has some bottled milk she can feed to the baby wolf if it doesnt turn to a baby baby. I remember in the Mercy thompson series that mercys mum found a coyote pup where her 3 month old daughter was suppose to be. Would that be just a skin walker thing and it was instinctual to mercy? Or could it happen to a baby werewolf?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Has on September 30, 2010, 04:07:47 am
In Blood Bound - there was worries about Ben who remained in wolf form. He would have died if he didn't change so for a werewolf if they remain in either form for long must weaken them.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on September 30, 2010, 04:09:44 am
@Lissa, changing into a pup in the crib is specific to Mercy as a coyote walker--it has nothing to do with werewolves. Coyote walkers are not were-creatures. Mercy says as much within the first few paragraphs of chapter 1 in Moon Called.

With regard to the pregnancy, hmmm, recall working again, I'm pretty sure that although wolves can mate in wolf form, they do so in human form almost exclusively. More enjoyable is I think how one of the characters explained it. But the point is this: werewolves MUST change at least once a month. So even if a female became pregnant in human form the day after her monthly wolf change, and she stayed in human form for the next 28-31 days, she might actually be able to manage one change without hurting the fetus. But by the 3rd month, a change to wolf would result in a miscarriage.


This is how I interpret the whole thing ...  9)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on September 30, 2010, 04:10:59 am
good question... but it gaves me another question: when does the changing start? from what I get Sams and Charles mother was human (thanks to magic)... so does the change start after birth?

another thing (I cant stop myself thinking about it) again is a surrogate mother.
A male werewolf can have childs with a human (the child is not a werewolf, like Adams daughter)
a female werewolf can be pregnant but she will loose the child
...a fertilized egg in a human body (thanks to the modern medicine) could be possible...
(sorry for bringing this up again)
and if that "would" work... when will the child change? will it change at all? or is it "just" a human?

such an easy idea, so much to talk about
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on September 30, 2010, 09:46:17 am
And here's another complication to throw into the mix for you.
Only some of the babies would be were, some would be completely human, like Jesse, and if a werewolf went to the trouble (assuming she stayed humanly sane) of staying wolf for even 8 months (an 8 month baby is reasonably healthy, and it would cut the stress on the woman) and gave birth, it could turn out that the child was completely human, and would die in under 100 years any way.  It would still allow her to give birth, but it would not guarantee a werewolf child.

Also, while it is not explicitly said that I recall, I presume that Charles changed with the full moon from the day he was born.

Oh, and with regard to a werewolf baby not changing from wolf to human, and what to do about feeding it, even if (like Charles) it's a dominant personality, it's still a BABY, an adult dominant werewolf can force him or her to change, so the mother can feed it comfortably. 

This makes me wonder (and I'll put it in the right thread) if there are submissive - not less dominant, but truly submissive - female werewolves.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: dee on September 30, 2010, 09:52:59 am
good question... but it gaves me another question: when does the changing start? from what I get Sams and Charles mother was human (thanks to magic)... so does the change start after birth?

another thing (I cant stop myself thinking about it) again is a surrogate mother.
A male werewolf can have childs with a human (the child is not a werewolf, like Adams daughter)
a female werewolf can be pregnant but she will loose the child
...a fertilized egg in a human body (thanks to the modern medicine) could be possible...
(sorry for bringing this up again)
and if that "would" work... when will the child change? will it change at all? or is it "just" a human?

such an easy idea, so much to talk about


sam and charles have different mothers....sam was born from a human mother and later turned into a wolf, chalres's mom was a werewolf when she had him

also in the books both sam's ex's and adam's ex miscarried numerous times and when they both did have children they ended up being human...i think the problem is more than the females change...i think IMO the problem also lies with the baby itself...unless magic is included i think it's near impossible for a werewolf to be born (in this series). other wolves from other countries aren't talked about much but from the looks of things charles is the only born werewolf around and look what it cost for his birth....

but got me thinking fae's have really weird and powerful magic that do stuff unimaginable (bringing someone back from the dead :o)maybe arianna will be able to find a way to carry another werewolf to term since she won't have to worry about changes....or just give birth to a half human half fae baby.....(fingers crossed for half fae/half werewolf , imagina a child that can track with scent and ties...he/she'll be the ultimate tracking wolf)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Has on September 30, 2010, 10:12:17 am
Here is another thing to throw in here - what if a female werewolf mated with a male Walker like canine shape - would their baby shift in the womb? That idea cropped up in my head the other day - would make things interesting in a lot of ways especially since how possessive male werewolves are towards female ones.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on September 30, 2010, 11:04:34 am
good question... but it gaves me another question: when does the changing start? from what I get Sams and Charles mother was human (thanks to magic)... so does the change start after birth?

another thing (I cant stop myself thinking about it) again is a surrogate mother.
A male werewolf can have childs with a human (the child is not a werewolf, like Adams daughter)
a female werewolf can be pregnant but she will loose the child
...a fertilized egg in a human body (thanks to the modern medicine) could be possible...
(sorry for bringing this up again)
and if that "would" work... when will the child change? will it change at all? or is it "just" a human?

such an easy idea, so much to talk about


sam and charles have different mothers....sam was born from a human mother and later turned into a wolf, chalres's mom was a werewolf when she had him

also in the books both sam's ex's and adam's ex miscarried numerous times and when they both did have children they ended up being human...i think the problem is more than the females change...i think IMO the problem also lies with the baby itself...unless magic is included i think it's near impossible for a werewolf to be born (in this series). other wolves from other countries aren't talked about much but from the looks of things charles is the only born werewolf around and look what it cost for his birth....

but got me thinking fae's have really weird and powerful magic that do stuff unimaginable (bringing someone back from the dead :o)maybe arianna will be able to find a way to carry another werewolf to term since she won't have to worry about changes....or just give birth to a half human half fae baby.....(fingers crossed for half fae/half werewolf , imagina a child that can track with scent and ties...he/she'll be the ultimate tracking wolf)
wait... Sam and Charles have different mothers? In my (german) book they are called as brothers. Twins...
or maybe thats a bad translation... again  >:(
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on September 30, 2010, 11:18:44 am
Very bad translation, come on, remember the story line; Bran & Samuel were basically changed at the same time, over 1,000 years ago; Charles was born to Blue Jay Woman roughly 2 centuries (200 years) ago.  They are half brothers.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on September 30, 2010, 11:25:29 am
ok. bad translation. real bad translation.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on October 01, 2010, 06:30:58 pm
Here is another thing to throw in here - what if a female werewolf mated with a male Walker like canine shape - would their baby shift in the womb? That idea cropped up in my head the other day - would make things interesting in a lot of ways especially since how possessive male werewolves are towards female ones.

Oh, that would be a fun storyline in so many ways... O) >D
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on October 02, 2010, 11:36:07 am
There arn't that many walkers though...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on October 02, 2010, 02:34:42 pm
Ah but we don't know that for sure LGW.  They just aren't publicizing their whereabouts.  I like that female werewolf mating with a walker theory. Could be some hope for baby weres.  ;D
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on October 02, 2010, 04:44:39 pm
The female werewolf would still probably lose the baby, because they lose all babies, werewolf or human.  With the exception of Charles' mother, who ended up dying as a result.  I'd still like to see a female werewolf mated to a male walker, just to see the chaos that would likely cause in whatever pack she's in.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Lissa on October 03, 2010, 02:38:51 am
But if the werewolf mother got pregnant while she was wolf and didn't change till she gave birth it's possible the baby could survive. Seeing as the mother doesnt change during the pregnancy i cant think of any reason that  they cant have children that way. I mean if there would be something wrong with the babies, like they wouldnt know how to change into people. But i would think it to be instinctual, like howling and stuff.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on October 03, 2010, 03:26:56 am
yes, it would be possible. but as youcan read in the last book its dangerous to stay in wolf-form for too long. she would loose too much of her humanity
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on October 03, 2010, 04:27:38 am
More importantly, as is suggested by Victorymon's response, it's not only possible that the mother would lose too much of herself within her wolf, perhaps the cub's own humanity would be at risk of not developing as it should--maybe it would be delayed and that might have important consequences for its eventual personality.


Humanity is what keeps a werewolf a werewolf and not a mundane wolf with superpowers. I think there is no easy fix to this problem.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Varg on October 03, 2010, 04:45:03 am
From what I understand the danger of loosing the human half is very real if they stay wolf too long. This would sort of defeat the purpose of staying in one shape in order to keep the fetus. I am not sure I understand why they would necessarily have to stay wolf in order to do this, unless the gestation time then would be that of a wolf, rather than human. The gestation pedriod of wolves is somewhere around 60 days, a significantly shorter period than a human pregnancy.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on October 03, 2010, 05:01:09 am
yes, its way shorter than the human time. but still too long (maybe)
so I can just repeat: science is the answer  9)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Varg on October 03, 2010, 05:09:25 am
Yes, but there is also the element of magic. so basically one would need magic science.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on October 06, 2010, 11:28:13 am
A whole new line of science would come out. Maybe, combined with the knowledge of magic, science could find a way to have were kids
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Elle on November 10, 2010, 06:19:01 am
Hi guys, since that last bit of convo was more Mercy specific I just shifted it over to that discussion thread:

The Weres » Characters Board » Individual Characters » Mercy, Children, and Family Questions (http://www.hurog.com/forum/index.php?topic=352.0)

This thread is a more generalized discussion on werewolves and children. You can continue the Mercy specific discussion over in the Characters board. :)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on March 17, 2011, 06:45:19 pm
For some reason I got to thinking about this after reading River Marked.  We know that there are types of magic that can inhibit or prevent the change from one form to another, such as Jim's earth magic and whatever magic Charles' mother used. .  Assuming that someone found a way to prevent a female werewolf from changing shape, you'd still have the problem of the spellcaster (presumably?) being so weak from maintaining a spell for nine months that they would probably die.  What if there was some way to replace the energy they lost?  As for exactly what that would be, I got nothing.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 18, 2011, 05:44:54 pm
I guess if Adam couldn't changeit may work
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Ellyll on March 18, 2011, 06:40:33 pm
How?  It's the change of the female that makes the difference in the viable fetus, so what would Adam changing have to do with it?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 18, 2011, 07:30:20 pm
Well, if you had a situation where the mother, in human form, got stuck like a reversal of Adam's problem in River Marked, it could work.

But there is still the issue that The Wolf is the one who caused that little episode, and he doesn't seem like the type to help out just for funsies. And not by having folk get stuck in human form.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 19, 2011, 06:39:09 am
Thanks, Spryte. Ellyll, Coyote said in RM that old creatures cpuld still do that, it's just a matter of finding someone

**Spoiler bars added AGAIN for those who haven't read River Marked yet.
Patti L.,
Busymoddy
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on March 19, 2011, 07:20:47 pm
It sounded like someone with earth magic could do it. Like when Adam was having trouble changing to wolf form, and even Mercy had a little trouble changing to coyote, I think.  So I wondered if Charles' mother used a variation of that type of magic, although it never says what kind of magic she used.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 23, 2011, 12:34:44 pm
Ok, so I've been doing some reading, and I've found some interesting stuff that may pertain to the fertility of human women carrying were babies.

We've pretty much settled the fact that these women miscarry because their bodies freak out over the foreign-ness of the were-chil'ren. So it's like women who have autoimmune diseases like Lupus, and their increased rate of miscarriage. If you can treat the immune system issues in someone who has Lupus so they can have a baby, it would follow that you could treat a normal immune system so that a human woman could have a werewolf's child.

Here's a link with a little more on the subject: http://www.infertilityphysician.com/evaltreat/immune.html (http://www.infertilityphysician.com/evaltreat/immune.html)

Obviously, real world technology is still figuring this out, but I can see it as an *Insert dramatic voice over* "In The Future" possibility.

Whatcha think?  ???
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 23, 2011, 12:40:59 pm
Never thought of that. It may actually work if you could trick the immune system. hmmm... must find someone with medical batground (wanders off)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Varg on March 29, 2011, 01:20:01 pm
Hmm, even if the baby actually changes in the womb and becomes a different species?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 29, 2011, 04:24:20 pm
I thought that the mother only shifted... and that was why the baby miscarried ???
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 29, 2011, 05:09:52 pm
If the mother is a were, that would be true.
If a human woman is carrying a were baby, she will miscarry because her body freaks out and thinks the baby is foreign.
The theory about "tricking" the immune system would only work for human women carrying were babies.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 29, 2011, 05:34:59 pm
Presuming the change itself wouldn't be too much for the fetus to bare of course.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 29, 2011, 05:38:12 pm
As in the fetus changing? I think, since Charles exists, we can assume that it is at least possible.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 29, 2011, 05:43:46 pm
Yes, but I think when Charle's mother prevented the change, she provented it for him too.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on March 29, 2011, 05:45:13 pm
but does the fetus change? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 29, 2011, 05:45:52 pm
Hmmmm... that's a possibility. But wouldn't that have weakened Charles too? And we know that because he's a born werewolf, the change is easier for him. Would it be easy enough for a fetus to survive, or did Blue Jay woman in fact prevent his change too? I don't remember that being in the books...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on March 29, 2011, 05:58:16 pm
The fetus is developing I don't believe it changes too. It is the Change of the mother that kills the fetus and with a human mother the foreign entity.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Spryte on March 29, 2011, 06:20:52 pm
That's the impression I got. But I don't think there is any textual evidence to support one idea over the other 100%.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 29, 2011, 07:24:08 pm
I more or less figured that early on the fetus didn't change, but later it did. We did have conformation that Charles was changing from birth, I don't think that being born was enough to trigger him starting to change, but the first couple of months I wouldn't think the fetus would be complex enough to need to change.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 30, 2011, 11:09:00 am
Well a fetus wolf isn't bigger than a baby...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 30, 2011, 11:29:58 am
Yeah, but I imagine something as harsh as changing form would be too much for the deliquite fetus.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on March 30, 2011, 02:52:25 pm
Yeah, but I imagine something as harsh as changing form would be too much for the deliquite fetus.

Thus the early miscarriages...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 30, 2011, 03:45:51 pm
Actually fetuses don't feel pain until they are a little farther along
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 30, 2011, 03:48:17 pm
I wasn't really talking about the pain, so much as how hard on the fetus the change would be. It would take up lots of energy, which would normally be going towards growing.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 30, 2011, 03:50:43 pm
You have a valid point, but i think i'll stay with my opinion :-whistle
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DandelionWine on March 30, 2011, 05:31:26 pm
I'm agreeing with Zealith, it's about the violence of the change if the mother is were, and the rejection of the fetus if she's human and the baby got the were gene.  Here's part of my post in the thread about Mercy having children ... I snipped the part that talks about Mercy having kids cause it doesn't apply to this topic.

Point ONE
.
  In order for a human to be turned, they have to be savaged so extremely that their body is too weak to fight the “infection” on the were’s saliva.  A minor wound that leaves the body strong enough to fight the infection does not result in the human changing.

Point TWO
.
  The only time a human woman carries a werewolf’s baby to term is if it doesn’t have the were gene, and so is completely human.

Point THREE.  My interpretation is that if the fetus has the were gene, a human woman’s body sees it as alien organism like a transplanted organ that was incompatible, or an infection to be fought against much as the ‘germs’ from a not harsh-enough were attack on a human, and so the early spontaneous abortion (a.k.a. a miscarriage)… much the way a pregnancy ends when there is a genetic flaw that the mother’s body can react to does.  To me, that means it’s not got anything to do with the fetus changing in the womb, which IMO is supported by point FOUR.

Point FOUR.  A werewolf’s change is painful, violent and harsh.  Entire muscles and bones re-align and readjust, probably also internal organs moving around to suit a wolf’s body instead of a human one.  THIS in my opinion is what causes a female were to lose her child, it’s the violence of her change, not the fetus’s.

Point FIVE.  Charles’ mother Blue Jay Woman was able to carry him to term because he had the were gene and so did she, so her body saw the fetus as ‘normal’ and she had enough magic to NOT change with the moon.  Avoiding that violent change assured the survival of her baby, but also weakened her to the point that the birth was too much for her.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on March 30, 2011, 05:51:28 pm
Looks like you're actually disagreeing with me.

Though your theory is just as valid as mine. I just like mine better.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DandelionWine on March 30, 2011, 06:00:02 pm
Ahh yes, I should have read the back posts more carefully.  Well, whoever I'm agreeing with, I'm agreeing with em!   8)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on March 31, 2011, 10:59:07 am
 LOL :D I think you r agreeing with everybody in a way, both sides have valid points and only pattricia briggs knows the answer
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ~Pandora~ on April 24, 2011, 06:25:24 pm
I understand from reading that female werewolves cannot carry to term because of the change every month. I'm just wondering, with all the recent medical advances, if it would be possible for a surrogate to carry the baby for the werewolf couple. Obviously, the eggs and sperm are still viable, its just a matter of development.

This leads me to think about a book or TV show (I'm thinking it was Being Human, but who knows) where a human was pregnant with a werewolf baby and miscarried because the fetus itself was going through the change at the full moon. Wonder if the fetus would change (be interesting to know if Charles did this).

And now that I'm thinking about it, I'm wondering if the surrogate could then become a werewolf after carrying - I mean, assuming that all this is possible, the embryo would have  to be accepted by the surrogate's immune system. I wonder if its possible to have some type of DNA transfer from the embryo to surrogate, enough that she could be changed ...

Anyways, just me ranting/wondering out loud. Stupid biology classes, making me think so hard.  :D
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on May 01, 2011, 08:47:42 am
Pandora  I see where you are coming from but humans can only carry fully human children the were ones are miscarried as the body sees the were as a foreign body.  So if the transplanted fetus was human then yes a surrogate mother could solve the issue.  But where to find a surrogate.  How much does the surrogate need to know about the parents?  Food for thought.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on May 01, 2011, 08:59:21 am
If the wolves are out and ask for the help, it might not be an issue.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on May 01, 2011, 09:06:03 am
Still a lot would be involved to get a fully human fetus since the were gene is predominant.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on May 01, 2011, 09:07:27 am
True. But think of all of the other things we already test for.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on May 01, 2011, 09:14:26 am
Maybe find a cure for the wolf by isolating the were gene...nah then we wouildn't have the books. LOL But isolating the gene would make it easier to detect a fully human fetus for implanting in a surrogate.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on May 02, 2011, 11:29:01 am
You also have to think that the wolves only recently came out.  The public and many possible suragate mothers may not be up to the task
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on May 02, 2011, 11:39:49 am
@little gray wolf: I dont think that it would be a good idea to use werewolves as  guinea pigs. they keep as many secrets as possible. like being almost immortal.

I must say the books are one source but the comic is even better
female wolf: no way for a baby (without big magic) because of the moon and the change
human woman: when the baby got too much of a wolf its over too

...ok, at this point I think there might be a dangerous way. it seems like the human body just "knows" that its wrong when there is a werewolf inside, so it gets rid of it.
like getting a bodypart from somebody else. when you get, for example, a new liver you have to take special medicine to trick your imune-system.

and before the whole theorie about babys and the full moon comes up, I dont think that the one and only werewolf-mother used a second spell to keep her baby in human shape. that way it would be dead by birth because it was always human-shape, never wolf.

so when there would be a way to trick the human imune system a woman could give birth to a trueblood werewolf-baby. and the baby would get the ability to change later.

I guess Mercy is a good example. even for a walker. her mother found her someday in her coyote shape.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on May 02, 2011, 11:48:06 am
I'm missing some of your meaning there, V'mon.
But again, Walker has nothing to do with werewolf.  Walker is genetic, like blue eyes or an extra toe.  Werewolf is (barring Charles) imposed from without, like grafting yellow roses on a red rose bush.  You're not just talking apples and oranges, you're talking apples and algae.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on May 03, 2011, 11:18:48 am
Still kinda confused as to what v-mon is saying ???
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on May 03, 2011, 07:17:16 pm
well, maybe its the language barrier. or it was typical for me. I try to write it again...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on May 04, 2011, 04:13:41 pm
Your english is actually very good, but the wording is a tad confusing
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on May 04, 2011, 08:14:31 pm
Your english is actually very good, but the wording is a tad confusing
uhm... thanks?

OK, to make it short and easy:

from the books and the comics we know this much:

a female werewolf cant have kids (only with magic and that is dangerous)
a female human can have kids with a werewolf, but when the child got too much of the wolf its not possible

the last part is the interesting one. why does the human body refuse it? maybe because the body knows that something is wrong?

another question: when does the change begin for the baby? I dont think that it can change when its still with its mother. that would kill both of them. no, I think they are connected. when the mother changes the baby would too (I hope everymon gets what I mean with that).
my theorie: it would start after the birth

and about the body refusing the wolf-baby: maybe medicine would help to tell the human body that everything is allright
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on May 05, 2011, 05:42:53 pm
Something that just occurred to me. One problem with the theory about a human mother's body rejecting a werewolf fetus because it is too different.  Why is it that human women can give birth to half fey children? I mean, I can't imagine that the fey are more genetically similar to humans than werewolves.   
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Rob on May 05, 2011, 05:56:28 pm
It's more likely that the fetus goes through a change at full moon, at least once it is more developed, and the human mother's body rejects the fetus because of it's lupine properties.

With the fey, they may not seem it, but they might be just genetically close enough to cross.  Remember, genetically, we're aren't very far off from an earthworm......it is all about difference of very fine degrees....
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on May 06, 2011, 10:54:39 am
And the fae have a glamor that can trick the sences. The child may have a glamor that tricks the mother's body
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on May 06, 2011, 11:28:40 am
Glamors do not trick all the senses, usually.  I also doubt they're something a 2 cell, 4 cell, 8 cell, etc. organism is going to put out. 
On the other hand (and this would sort of apply to werewolves, to stay on the proper topic) the . . . mechanical fact of evolution/survival for the species means that the female body craves to reproduce.  For some reason, it's possible that the human female reproductive system (can male humans father children on fae women usually?  We know it worked for Ari.) finds the somewhat different but natural to them structure of fae genetics close enough for acceptance, but not the violently bent genes of the werewolf?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on May 06, 2011, 12:11:49 pm
In IK, a fea was thought to be trying to seduce, for lack of a better word, the guard who was human and a male,and a fea( sorry about the fact that I can't remember the names) mentioned something along the lines of she did it to have children.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Ethereal Light on August 03, 2011, 10:22:58 am
So tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to stay in wolf form for the werewolves?

If they could stay in wolf form, in theory they could possibly have children. It just seems odd that they have to change back from wolf when the Marrok didn't for a long length of time. Sure, you might end up with some...oddities in the birth, but it would still be a child, which is what many of the wolves pine for constantly throughout the  story.

Then again, the child might stay a wolf... Oof I don't know!  :-[
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Rob on August 03, 2011, 10:31:12 am
I think one of the problems is that the longer one stays in wolf form, the more the 'beast' (the wolf) takes control......so staying 9 months or so in wolf form would probably destroy the human personna....


also, unless the child is a werewolf, it would stay human after the change, which I don't think would be compatable with the wolf's body and would be rejected, as the wolf/werewolf babies are rejected by the human mothers.  Also, if the child is a werewolf, then it would be forced to changed by the moon, which I doubt it's developing body could take the strain of - not to mention what that might do to the mother.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: little gray wolf on August 03, 2011, 11:45:24 am
good point Rob., but how did the Marok stay wolf, back when he went beserker? Maybe I'll start another thread...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on August 03, 2011, 02:19:26 pm
Same way Ben stayed wolf for several days after he ate Daniel.  Except he managed to come back eventually, with Samuel's help.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kristi on October 07, 2011, 09:10:30 am
I know this is an old post, but Patti L. brings up an excellent question - why hasn't Charles helped Samuel magically when it comes to a baby?

I think it would have more to do with the magic of the mother, rather than just having a magic user around. In the first book (I think!) it was stated that Charles' mother used her magic to stop the change until his birth. However, it is stated later that she used the magic of her father's people. So, does it require both, or could Charles use his magic every month on whomever Samuel takes a liking to?

However, we've now read Silver Borne. (spoiler alert!!!!) Can the fae and werewolves interbreed?

Food for thought :)


And thanks Patti for bringing this thread to my attention!  :D I have had a chance to read through them all yet, but I'm getting there!
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 07, 2011, 09:22:51 am
Has Samuel been in a position (that he knew of) to ask for Charles' help since Charles was born. If we are looking at Sam's lifespan, Charles hasn't been there that long. The baby in Texas Medical School was not something he knew about in time to do anything.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 07, 2011, 09:55:43 am
Always nice to get new views on old discussions.

I think that at least part of the reason that Charles couldn't help Samuel have children is that it took both Blue Jay Woman's magic and that of her father to ensure Charles' birth - and it still killed her. 
First, you'd need a NA woman with magic of her own, and one or (much better for chances of her survival) more other NA's probably from the same tribe/family, with a vested interest in her survival, to get it to work.
Second, she'd be able to have all human children anyway; it would be only if she was changed to werewolf that the issue of her having a werewolf child would come up, I think.

Although, come to think, maybe not.  Maybe, with a family of NA magic users, a completely human woman could bear a werewolf child to term, or near term.  Then perhaps a Cesarian birth? 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on October 07, 2011, 10:08:22 am
lets just throw in the comic. I guess they made it very clear too.

female wolf = unable to keep the child
male werwolf + human wife is something else. too much of a wolf and the child cant survive.

interesting. let me think about the fact that its impossible to combine a bird and a swine (yes, bad excample) to get a flying pig.
back to wolves that makes it really interesting. maybe it has not so much to do with magic but more with the genes/dna.

magic to trick nature. wow. genetic experiments are one thing but this goes over my head.

but wait... wait a second. I guess it was in the third book. Mercy was in trouble and Adam came in half human/half were-form.  :o so what if (and I mean IF) a female were can change into a mix between human and wolf... would that be a way?
and whats with the fae and their hidden kingdom? maybe if a were stays in a magical land without full moon...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 07, 2011, 10:31:50 am
Gestate the child Underhill, or in some other Fae Queen's domain?  Now... that's an interesting idea.  It could be done in what the mother perceived as essentially 9 months, while under 28 days went by in our world.  So, no full moon.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 07, 2011, 10:35:56 am
Do the Fae have control of the time change or does it just exist? Is is a variable change in different places?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on October 07, 2011, 10:50:53 am
Do the Fae have control of the time change or does it just exist?
I have no idea.

Is is a variable change in different places?
definitly yes. Thrid book Mercy somehow was able to get to the ocean (it was a ocean... or was it a beach?) and it was the same time-system.
and in the other book... was it Bone Crossed?... she was in another place with other rules for time.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 07, 2011, 11:03:23 am
The time stretched two ways in "River Marked"; Gabriel & Phin were there for a week or more while only about one day went past before Mercy & Co. found them.  Then the wolves & fae hunted her for about a month while only a few hours went by for her in that realm.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on October 07, 2011, 11:07:43 am
yes. very interesting.
another *stupid* idea came into my mind (thank you video-games) and that was a coma.
would the body would change just because of the full moon?
on the other hand, I dont think that a wolf can fall into a coma  9)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on October 09, 2011, 08:56:21 am


However, we've now read Silver Borne. (spoiler alert!!!!) Can the fae and werewolves interbreed?

Food for thought :)




I would think it would depend on the fae.  If the child is part human, part fae, probably.  If it is part werewolf, part fae, maybe?  We know that there are some fae who can change shape, so probably some of them could have a child who is part werewolf.  I wonder, would you get a child who is mostly fae but maybe could change into a werewolf, or one who is mostly werewolf but maybe has a couple interesting talents?  That would be fun to see the results of.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 12, 2011, 11:00:19 am
I was reading the Bran & Leah debate, & it occurred to me to wonder: if a woman was 8 months to nine, due to give birth, pregnant & attacked by a werewolf, what would it do to her baby?  She might die & the baby live, but would it be were?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on October 12, 2011, 01:29:53 pm
I suspect in that event she would go into early labor, and the baby would be born human. It that wasn't the case, I would want to know how the curse is born. If it is blood or body fluid born, then the child probably would become a werewolf. If it is simply the act of biting that causes the curse to be passed on, I would say the child would be human.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 12, 2011, 01:40:26 pm
That would be on heck of a baby to raise.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 12, 2011, 02:09:58 pm
Yeah, well Bran has done it before...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 12, 2011, 02:19:41 pm
That would assume he knows. Someone attacking a pregnant woman would by my definition be feral, and thus the attack might not register for a while. The Child from Silver Bourne comes to mind. Woman in the hospital suffering from a wild animal attack, giving premature birth might not be able to tell anyone what animal attacked.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 12, 2011, 06:05:17 pm
"The Child"?  I don't remember a child from that one.  Remind me, please.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Has on October 12, 2011, 06:17:30 pm
Is the baby that was attacked by a dog? Cant remember if it was in Silver Borne or Bone Crossed though.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 12, 2011, 06:19:52 pm
There was a child attacked by a pit bull in one of the first 2 or 3, but it was the family pet, treated by Samuel, nothing to do with a werewolf attack.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 13, 2011, 12:54:34 am
I consider teenagers to be children.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 13, 2011, 01:08:52 am
Okay, but I still don't remember a child/teen in "Silver Borne" being attacked by a werewolf.
Do you mean back in "Blood Bound", Kyra, the girl who was 10 when she was attacked, whose father tracked Mercy down to try & find her help?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 13, 2011, 01:15:16 am
Yes, I'd forgotten when in the series it was mentioned. I didn't bring my books with me for reasons of practicality. I have to remember all plot points without aide. Which means I'll remember a fact, but not be able to look it up to get everything correct. Makes it difficult to be useful in a discussion.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 13, 2011, 01:32:53 am
Okay, well, then.  A ten year old who has been force changed in her memory is different from an infant who is changed as he/she is born.  For the infant, it would be almost like Charles; it's all he's ever known, so he can't really compare it to a 'normal' childhood.  But, because Bran did deal with the child tantrums & naive toddling off to explore (reminded of the story of young Dr. Carter Wallace trying to befriend the rattlesnake) and going through puberty with werewolf excesses to exaggerate typical teen hormonal messes, Bran has familiarity with all of that. 
Whereas the ten year old girl is now 13 - maybe as much as 15 by the time "Fair Game" takes place.  She remembers being attacked, and she did not grow up always being able/required to change shape, thinking of schoolmates & teachers as potential prey.  And while she is trying to cope with those issues at a messy point in her life, it's not completely unheard of.  Extremely rare for children to be attacked (Save by Chastel, who ate them anyway), rarer for them to survive through a few months of changing shape, and rarer yet for them to be female, but not unheard of.  There may well be other "older" wolves - meaning any who have survived say 20 years or more, not just the real ancients like Bran & Asil - who have dealt with raising such children before.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Janilee on October 13, 2011, 01:36:42 am
I agree with all of that. The point I was trying to make was it could occur without Bran finding out about it. It might not be an experienced werewolf raising this child.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 13, 2011, 08:12:35 am
Well, faint maybe.  Since the Alphas are supposed to bring updated lists of their packs to the semi-annual meetings with Bran, he would find out about it.  Unless the Alpha lies for some reason, like Leo did.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Varg on October 13, 2011, 08:35:36 am
Hmm, wasn't Kyra attacked by a rogue who never reported it to anyone? And then her father got advice from someone else, I can't remember if that too was a rogue or not, who apparently did not tell Bran or any other alhpa,so it does seem to be a possibility.Not a big one but still.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DandelionWine on October 13, 2011, 11:15:10 am
The wolf who advised Kyra's father was a lone wolf and he killed the rogue and helped her.  I don't know that any lone wolf has any obligation to report such things to anyone, it sounds like Bran wasn't overly upset with how things turned out, though he may have spoken to the lone wolf about things later...  he does seem to keep things low key.

The thought about what would happen if a pregnant woman were attacked are interesting, but perhaps not something that would be included in these series' of books.  It seems that Ms Briggs has certain lines of violence and situations that she doesn't cross.  Such violence against a pregnant woman may be over that fine line she seems to have ingrained in her psyche.  Violence and Werewolves go together in quite a matter of fact way, and she treats it in a very unapologetic way for the most part which suites me very well, but whether or not this idea is over the line or not, it isn't for us to say.  it really doesn't matter what we think either, they're her books and she deserves our respect for such things.



Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on October 30, 2011, 08:51:15 pm
that would be scary.  Russian prison werewolves.  eep.

In Evolution class the other day we were discussing hybridization and the fact that new evidence suggests that there are actually two species formerly classified as "Gray wolves" (of which there are many subspecies that people often mistakenly think were classified as species).  One species is very closely related to (and may be a subspecies of) red wolves.  This is the species which will interbreed with coyotes, as will red wolves.  The European/Asian/northwestern North American species is more distantly related (is the sister taxon of the coyote-red wolf-"Eastern Canadian Wolf" clade) and would not hybridize with coyotes.

That said, I would guess based on hybridization in other parts of the genus that hybridization is still possible, just harder to get.  (You have to either artificially inseminate the female or break down all pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms)  Possibly hybrids would be sterile or suffer hybrid breakdown (they, their offspring or future descendants would be less healthy/fit). 

But I thought it would pose an interesting point for discussion, especially the sterility and/or hybrid breakdown points.  Obviously werewolves aren't gray wolves.  And they're human as well as supernatural beings.  As far as we know, female walkers are no more or less capable of having children than female humans (or else walker lineages would have died out long ago and we wouldn't have the hawks in RM).  Male werewolf+human woman certainly results in decreased hybrid fitness (fatality of all offspring with hybrid DNA, survival of only those offspring who are 100% human).

(mods, if you think this ought to go in a different thread, feel free to move it.  I just remembered I think there's a thread on werewolves having children...)

**Done!
Patti L.,
Busymoddy
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 30, 2011, 08:59:58 pm
The answer might be something like "beefalo", where I understand the best hybridization (although best for what, I don't recall...) is 5/8. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on October 30, 2011, 09:07:17 pm
5/8 what?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on October 30, 2011, 09:11:30 pm
I think it's Bison, vs. beef cattle.  Could be the other way around.  But if so, I don't think they'd be usint that term for them.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on October 31, 2011, 06:29:50 am
*tries to figure out how a 5:8 ratio of genes comes to be... genetics works on exponential scale from 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...)*
Anyway, what you're saying is that the best generation may be a future generation.  I understand that much. 

But if the original hybrid between a coyote walker and a werewolf has reduced vitality, how does that affect Mercy and Adam?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: DandelionWine on October 31, 2011, 11:41:31 am
Errrr.... it doesn't?  It's magic!  It's like Mercy says about where the extra 50 or 60 lbs comes from when a person changes to a werewolf, no one knows, it's MAGIC!   (and fiction, but I know you're not forgetting that)  Everything genetic can be totally explained by magic!  Any of the genetics are only affected by things if the magic allows it!  (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on October 31, 2011, 12:34:57 pm
pssshhh.  Obviously it's magic.  I mean, if Joe Old Coyote could breed and produce offspring with Margie (And we assume based on other walkers that said offspring is viable/non-sterile), and fae of all sorts can interbreed with humans and produce true hybrids (vs. the fully-human children of werewolf-human pairings), and risky/life-threatening magic can be used to produce apparent vitality in the son of a female werewolf (otherwise incapable of producing viable offspring)... Yes, magic works.
But hypothetically, if it worked by real world rules...
Reduced hybrid vitality/viability as applied to werewolves and walkers.  OR, alternatively, improved hybrid vitality/viability in any potential offspring could also affect Mercy and Adam (hybrids fitness in this case tends to be more prone to breakdown over subsequent generations, but we'll ignore that for the moment).  Imagine a child of theirs with all of the best bits from both his/her parents - fast healing, speed, strength, and fast, painless shapechanges.  And the ability to control ghosts.

*thinks Zee and Bran might make the best babysitters.  Maybe Charles and Anna.*
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on February 18, 2012, 12:15:27 pm
OK, but what about a complete test tube baby...then,  if it is the fetus that changes, maybe with machinery to help keep the vitals stable, the fetus could survive changing.  :-\ Or maybe I've just been reading too much David Weber.  9)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 18, 2012, 12:25:45 pm
Yep, too much DW, or even LMB; they don't exist yet, artificial wombs/uterine replicators.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on February 18, 2012, 12:42:36 pm
Isn't that how one of the "clones" was done? In China maybe..I admit it's a bit out there, but it could be in the experimental stages at this point.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 18, 2012, 12:48:36 pm
I believe they're mostly doing animal clones implanted in the same species, live surrogates.

There's another question... could they use the larger uterus of a cow, which also has a nine month gestation, for surrogacy?  Probably not, but...

And here's another; Werewolves are even more complex than baseline humans, might an actual werewolf fetus without the magical intervention BlueJayWoman & her dad did take more than nine months to develop completely?  Especially the child of a/the only born werewolf and an Omega?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on February 18, 2012, 02:43:40 pm
I could see that. It would make a certain amount of sense, giving both the human and the wolf body time to develop.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on February 18, 2012, 05:34:11 pm
Putting the fetus in the uterus of a cow-interesting, but probably not feasible. Some of the problems in human pregnancies come from Rh factors in blood not matching up for mothers and foeti (spelling?). And that's with a baby and mother being the same species. I think they'd have to wait for artificial wombs to be invented.  :)
I don't know about the gestation period being longer. Most of the last two trimesters is growth and development, if I remember correctly, which I may not.  :) I can't see why a werewolf baby would take that much longer. If you think about it, you could make a better case for a shorter gestation time, because the gestation period for normal wolves is shorter than for humans.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on February 18, 2012, 07:43:58 pm
I could see that happening too. If they could get themselves sperm and eggs that didn't have the werewolf virus/gene and used a surrogates. But using surrogates can cause its own problems. What happens if the woman carrying the child falls in love with it? I imagine it is probably very difficut for surrogates to give of the children.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 18, 2012, 07:59:21 pm
The subject of many a TV melodrama.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on February 19, 2012, 09:01:55 am
There's another question... could they use the larger uterus of a cow, which also has a nine month gestation, for surrogacy?  Probably not, but...
DEFINITELY not.  The less closely-related the surrogate is to the genetic parents (whether cloning or in surrogate pregnancy), the more likely it is that the fetus will be rejected by the body of the female.  Under most circumstances, they keep it within the same species; if they were very lucky, they might be able to do it within the same genus.  Different Orders?  no way.  They've made attempts in the name of "What if we tried to bring back *insert extremely rare or extinct species here* via cloning?" and the end result is, you have to use a closely-related species if you're going to do cross-species surrogacy.  and even then, you're often SOL.

Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on February 19, 2012, 09:15:00 am
*sigh* ok, now it gets really REALLY too far. But I have to write this now.
So how long can a female werwolf keep the baby? I mean before it dies.
Why I ask this? Its because I just saw one of the early x-flies (yes, with Mulder & Scully) and in that episode a woman was pregnant for 8 weeks when she was kidnapped and somemon stole her child.
Later she was kidnapped again (9 years later) and she was introduced to her daughter.
...
point is: how good is the medicine today? Just add some genetic experiments, goverment coverups, magic and fae-power.


the other thing is (I´m tired so I dont know if I already asked this): we all know that Mercys husband can shift into a mix between wolf and human. Would this shape would be stable enough (in body&mind)?


last thing: what happens to a werwolf when he/she is in a coma? do they change too?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on February 19, 2012, 09:36:18 am
the other thing is (I´m tired so I dont know if I already asked this): we all know that Mercys husband can shift into a mix between wolf and human. Would this shape would be stable enough (in body&mind)?
I'm not sure how Adam's ability to hold a half-form would have any affect on Mercy's ability to carry to term.
No, I know what you're asking: would the female be able to stay in half-form and keep the baby?  I don't think so.  For one thing, it's supposed to be incredibly painful (read any description of the actual process of the change) AND not very stable - how often do we see a werewolf staying in an intermediate phase?  I don't have IK with me, but I seem to remember something about it must have taken an incredible amount of will to not change all the way. 

Not to say that someone couldn't stay in a half-form for a period of time.  Probably 9 months is way unrealistic, but even if it was possible - the stress that the body would be under in that condition would cause the female to lose the baby anyway.  There's a reason bed rest is recommended for difficult pregnancies.  Stress in the mother can do all sorts of unpleasant things to the fetus, up to and including killing it. 


As for how good is today's medicine?  A quick google search says that the earliest pre-term birth to survive was at approximately 22 weeks, and they don't consider the fetus to be able to survive outside of the womb until 24 weeks, and those still have less than a 50% chance of survival, statistically speaking. 

So to have any realistic chance of survival, the werewolf mother would have to carry for at least 24 weeks - that's 6 months.  So let's carry this in a couple of directions.

1. I'm assuming that Blue Jay Woman carried Charles for the full 9 months, becoming increasingly weak as time went on.  If a female werewolf could find some way to prevent the change for only 6 months, and then induce labor or surgically remove the child, there MIGHT possibly be a chance, given modern medicine, that both mother and child could survive. 

2. Let's take Patti's argument - that a werewolf child might take longer than 9 months to develop fully - and reverse it.  Canines have shorter gestation than humans, and werewolves have shorter regeneration time, so why not a shorter development time for werewolf babies?  Or higher likelihood of surviving earlier if born pre-term due to that shortened healing.  Using the same argument above - if a werewolf fetus develops faster/can survive earlier, an earlier birth would give both mother and baby a much higher chance of survival. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on February 19, 2012, 05:34:01 pm
Let's say they found someone who could use magic to hold off the change. Could the female werewolf's pack give her enough power to replace the strength she lost over the duration of the pregnancy? We know that an Alpha can draw strength from the pack, and can send it to a member of the pack-I think Bran did that with Charles in Hunting Ground. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on February 19, 2012, 05:37:03 pm

the other thing is (I´m tired so I dont know if I already asked this): we all know that Mercys husband can shift into a mix between wolf and human. Would this shape would be stable enough (in body&mind)?


It wouldn't be stable enough. I think the wolf would still be at least partially in control, and it would be too difficult to maintain. Plus it'd have an effect on any less dominant wolves nearby. In IK, the only reason the other wolves were able to stay in human form was Darryl manipulating the pack magic, and it looked like it cost him a lot to do so.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on February 19, 2012, 06:28:14 pm
Let's say they found someone who could use magic to hold off the change. Could the female werewolf's pack give her enough power to replace the strength she lost over the duration of the pregnancy? We know that an Alpha can draw strength from the pack, and can send it to a member of the pack-I think Bran did that with Charles in Hunting Ground. 
Did Bran have a full Pack when Blue Jay Woman was pregnant?  I feel like even if they were the extent of their pack, Bran would have given her as much as he could of himself to save her if that was possible, and Bran was, what, at least several hundred years old and powerful when Charles was born? 
So, for whatever reason, I don't think this works, because I think it would have been tried with Blue Jay Woman.  It's possible that there's some kind of threshold of what the body can use borrowed energy for, or how much quantity or time borrowed power can be used to sustain a person.  Or there may be something about the pregnancy which prevents this sort of energy transfer, for instance if the woman's bonds to the child she is carrying are strong enough to block out or reduce other bonds.  Or if her body/mind rejects other foreign presences to protect herself or the fetus. 

It seems as well that the energy-borrowing between pack members is only done in extreme circumstances, so it could be that long-term use would have severe, long-term consequences among the rest of the pack, or long-term use (more than a couple of days or so) may simply be impossible. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on February 19, 2012, 06:50:40 pm
I want to say that at that point it was just Bran, Samuel, and Blue Jay Woman. I don't think they had a pack. I'll have to check around on the boards and see. It probably wouldn't be possible, but hey, that's what wild speculation is all about.  :P I love emoticons far too much.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 19, 2012, 09:54:25 pm
I want to say that at that point it was just Bran, Samuel, and Blue Jay Woman. I don't think they had a pack. I'll have to check around on the boards and see. It probably wouldn't be possible, but hey, that's what wild speculation is all about.  :P I love emoticons far too much.


What I've always wondered about regarding pregnancy.

Is there some way to get a wolf-woman into the Fairy Realms.  Its said that they can make time speed up or slow down.  Like with mercy being tortured by that Fae queen/lady type.  Crunch 7-9months worth of time down into one month mortal time and out she pops with the newborn.

If the Woman had massive control over her wolf (anna anyone) and could hold out for 7? months say?  Without the power of the moon to force a change, its all pure will power and willingness of woman and wolf to not chance, despite the itch.

Now like with Jay-bird it might almost kill her.  But that said...  Throw her in some kind of fae healing pool.  Or use that magic rape device on her, the same one they made Mercy keep drinking.  It could heal up almost anything with the minor side effect of stealing your will.  Figure out how to block that nasty side effect, or get something similar and anything could be possible.


The other one is, could a fae woman transfer the fetus into her body via magic and carry it to term as a surragate mother?


Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on February 20, 2012, 07:38:03 am
PoP, you are forgetting one very important thing here.
The Fae do nothing without expecting something in return, in the case you are suggesting that something would probably be the child. I think that would be way too large a price to pay, don't you?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 20, 2012, 08:42:01 am
PoP, you are forgetting one very important thing here.
The Fae do nothing without expecting something in return, in the case you are suggesting that something would probably be the child. I think that would be way too large a price to pay, don't you?

Oh of course that price would be too high.

On the other hand a life for a life would seem to be a prime way to open up the bargaining table.  I.E. I saved your fae life, how about you do me a small favor and help me kindle one in return?

I wouldn't start out with, we are even steven, here let me go into massive debt and probably end up with a changling at the end of the whole thing.



P.O.P.

Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on February 20, 2012, 09:03:01 am
I am wondering if the Fae consider all their debt to Mercy as fulfilled. If not maybe she could call it in, but I wouldn't count on that. Since, if I recall correctly, the Fae have had to mate with humans to keep their population up.

I would love it if Mercy had a child but we all know that would mean the end of the series, so I am content to let that wait.  I would like Anna and Charles to have a child, I think that would help Charles recenter himself.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 20, 2012, 09:08:22 am
I am wondering if the Fae consider all their debt to Mercy as fulfilled. If not maybe she could call it in, but I wouldn't count on that. Since, if I recall correctly, the Fae have had to mate with humans to keep their population up.

I would love it if Mercy had a child but we all know that would mean the end of the series, so I am content to let that wait.  I would like Anna and Charles to have a child, I think that would help Charles recenter himself.


We all know its the end of the series because Mercy/Patty feel that way.  But if Mercy/Patty changed her mind...
I mean heck.  Once again we could be coming into the fae world and raising our kids until they are old enough to fend for themselves.  although you might have trouble if the kids didn't age.

Realistically its not an ideal solution.  Too many ways for hte fae to pork you over.

That said, it'd be an ideal way to mess with Mercy and give her the family she vehemntly refuses to have.

She could get a tee shirt.  I was pregnent and lost in faire, 18 hours later 18years had passed and I stepped back out into the real world with my kid.

Could be a nasty situation, depending on if Adam went with her.  Also depending on what kind of fae she was stuck with.  A belligerently benign one or absently out for your best interests.  My dear you would have been killed if I left you out there.  This way as soon as the danger has passed on the outside, out you go.  Its just going to be a bit longer in here.



P.O.P.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 20, 2012, 09:52:07 am
You don't think Mercy would quietly sit back and leave it at that, do you?  Or Adam, or any of her friends, or Bran?

Not happening, IMO.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: CarolKat on February 20, 2012, 10:14:14 am
I agree, Patti. So not happening!
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Ellyll on February 20, 2012, 02:19:37 pm
Besides, it doesn't work that way.  If Mercy (or anyone) is in fairy for one month, and nine months elapsed outside, it's still only ONE month for Mercy.  So, nine months later, she'd come out of fairy only one month further along in her pregnancy.  Or, for that matter, in the age of her or a child/teenager.

A Blue Jay Woman would still have to stave off the pregnancy for the full term of her body's experienced time.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 20, 2012, 02:25:00 pm
Ah, but one of the classic tropes of fairytales is going in one night and coming out years older when only a month or so has elapsed on the outside, too.  That's the direction PoP is thinking about, I believe.  I still don't see Mercy doing that, though.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on February 20, 2012, 02:30:03 pm
Besides, who's to say that a lunar cycle wouldn't still affect a werewolf 'Underhill,' each month of perceived time.
I just don't see it happening.

On top of which, I feel this approach is a little too much "Magic happens and everyone lives happily ever after, don't question it!" for the world Patty has created.  I mean, sure, she could just say, "Oh, someone found a magic spell that will let a werewolf safely carry a fetus to term and give birth, no side effects," but in Mercyverse, magic has consequences and life doesn't get to be that easy.  That's part of what makes the world enjoyable!
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 20, 2012, 02:36:23 pm
Exactly, Kyria.  As an example of someone else who does the same thing, in the Eric Banyon Bard novels by Mercedes Lackey, the elf & human couple are hunting madly for a way to have children without draining the life from someone else to do it.  The one half human half elven person in that series was the child of a dark elf, so he didn't care about who he hurt to get what he wanted. 

Mercy, and most of the characters (main characters) in the Mercyverse would feel pretty much the same way Bran did about Blue Jay Woman; much as he loves Charles, he would have happily forgone his existence to keep his mate.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on February 20, 2012, 02:46:07 pm
For werewolf pregnancies: Still wouldn't work for a werewolf. She'd still experience nine months, even if more or less time passed in real world, and presumably would still have to change while in Underhill. Even if someone was preventing the change, she'd still weaken too much, unless the fae have a way to prevent that. If you really want the fae involved: what if one of them could use magic to keep the wolf calm enough to allow a werewolf to stay in wolf form long enough to have a baby without the human losing control? Of course, I doubt any Alpha would want a fae to have that much control over one of his wolves, so you'd have a fight on your hands. And by fight I mean interspecies war. 

For Mercy: We don't know that she would need a stay in Underhill to have a baby. And let's say she was in Underhill long enough to have a child and for the child to grow up enough to not need as much protection. Say, thirteen or fourteen years? She's just spent over a decade without Adam, her family, and her friends, even if that much time hasn't passed for them. I'm all for throwing massive obstacles at characters, I'm tormenting a few of my own at the moment, but at least let her and Adam have a few years to enjoy themselves. They've fought hard enough for it. If they're gonna fight a war, they should be able to fight it together. :)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on February 20, 2012, 02:52:24 pm
I'm of two minds on the way you read the Underhill idea, Kkat. 
On the one hand, I want to say "the whole idea is that she does (the female werewolf) the gestation period perceived as 39 weeks in under one moon cycle, thus preventing her from being moon called. 
On the other, it might be "28 days, suck it up, you have to change that often" in which case being Underhill wouldn't matter. 
As far as keeping the wolf calm, that would help, but I suspect that the change to wolf involves enough biochemical stuff that it would affect the thought processes beyond that, like addiction does, so it might not help her to retain a human mind.

For Mercy; remember that the whole reason Samuel was perusing her was his belief that she would be able to bear the child of a werewolf to term without the problems anyone else has with it, so it wouldn't be needed for that purpose.  Getting the child mature, maybe... but I don't see anybody being too happy about it.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 20, 2012, 05:12:33 pm
Besides, who's to say that a lunar cycle wouldn't still affect a werewolf 'Underhill,' each month of perceived time.
I just don't see it happening.

On top of which, I feel this approach is a little too much "Magic happens and everyone lives happily ever after, don't question it!" for the world Patty has created.  I mean, sure, she could just say, "Oh, someone found a magic spell that will let a werewolf safely carry a fetus to term and give birth, no side effects," but in Mercyverse, magic has consequences and life doesn't get to be that easy.  That's part of what makes the world enjoyable!


Whether Mercy is underhill with Adam or alone with her and the kid.  Wouldn't you say that having a decade or so pass for you, then popping back out into the outside world, be about the furthest thing from happily ever after you could imagine?  Especially since she still has all these enemies.  This way answers the logic behind the emotional I won't have kids in this kind of environment without really resolving any of the underlying reasons for that emotion.

I do agree that it is a little too much, waving the hands and saying 'its magic and you don't like it' for an explanation.

But like I said I think it nicely answers the reasoning for not having a kid while still giving Mercy lots of the emotional distress and anguish, that all her nice logic was trying to avoid.




P.O.P.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 22, 2012, 05:39:09 pm
I'm of two minds on the way you read the Underhill idea, Kkat. 
On the one hand, I want to say "the whole idea is that she does (the female werewolf) the gestation period perceived as 39 weeks in under one moon cycle, thus preventing her from being moon called. 
On the other, it might be "28 days, suck it up, you have to change that often" in which case being Underhill wouldn't matter. 
As far as keeping the wolf calm, that would help, but I suspect that the change to wolf involves enough biochemical stuff that it would affect the thought processes beyond that, like addiction does, so it might not help her to retain a human mind.

For Mercy; remember that the whole reason Samuel was perusing her was his belief that she would be able to bear the child of a werewolf to term without the problems anyone else has with it, so it wouldn't be needed for that purpose.  Getting the child mature, maybe... but I don't see anybody being too happy about it.

I wonder if you can force someone to stay in human form for a 9 month gestation period, wouldn't it be quicker and easier to force them to stay in their wolf form and just go with the standard canine pregnancy period?

Obviously a no go for Mercy, but for other were's.  Then even if you are pulling some kind of Jade you've only got to hold it together for a fraction of the time.



P.O.P.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Avarel on February 24, 2012, 12:16:34 am
I thought that if a were stayed in wolf form too long they lost track of their human side...?

I can't remember where that thought came from though.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 24, 2012, 02:31:26 am
I thought that if a were stayed in wolf form too long they lost track of their human side...?

I can't remember where that thought came from though.

No you are right.  Without the human, the were-wolf slowly takes control and then loses control until it becomes a ravening mass of kill kill kill.  Just look at Sameul.  The man wanted to die, so the wolf took control but slowly lost control of itself and its identity.  there was also a rogue werewolf in the same book where Bran went beserker.  He spent most of his time in wolf form.

That said.  We've been assuming the gestation period for a were-wolf is nine months.  The only definitive proof we have is that its longer than one human menstrual cycle.

However if you assume a canine/wolf pregnancy...  its 65 days from mate to birth.  You've only got to make it one, maybe two mooncycles.  Charles's mother had to hang in there for 8 or 9.  i'd think one with premies or two with full born wolf pups would be an experiment well worth trying.

http://wildworldofwolves.tripod.com/id7.htm
67. The wolf's gestation period is 63 days.
68. Wolf pups are born in April or May.
69. The average litter size for the wolf is four to seven pups, and can be as large as 14 pups.
70. The average weight of a newborn pup is one pound.
71. A wolf pup's eyes will open in 10-13 days.
72. At three weeks a wolf pup will be able to hear.
73. Wolf pups are born with blue eyes, which will change to yellow-gold by the time the pups are 8-16 weeks old.
74. At four weeks the pups will venture out of the den.


Even if the pups were more wolfish than otherwise, we've seen with Charles that your wolf doesn't have to be a completely separate entity.  He's much closer to his wolf than, presumably, anyone else.  Even if they were nothing but killing machines I'd have to think the experiment as well as the shot at producing a family would be worth the risk.

65 days to full term, two moon cycles to survive with magical assist.  I haven't heard of any werewolf who went two months in wolf form, except for the change, that went in sane.

Mercy was inside that faery mound, and I don't recall off the top of my head which way the time flow was going.  But wasn't it a month on the outside?  Well lets just cram 65 days under the faiery mound into 30 days topside and just skip the whole moon induced change and pop out some little were-babies.

Now you can tear it apart.



P.O.P.

P.S.  Not a thing for Mercy to consider.  But desperate women will do desperate things.  And after a century or two of telling yourself that your ability to have true happiness was stolen from you, I think you'd latch onto anything with the slightest fraction of a chance.  And the Fae have been underhill for centuries I think before they came out a few decades ago.  So except for the really old wolves, the mulit-decade and bare centuries or two females wouldn't have had the chance to try going underhill for a pregers.

And all it takes is one extremely dedicated female werewolf, as committed to finding a way to have children as Samuel is committed to being a doctor, or Bran to being the Marrok, to prove of disprove the theory.  Or one with a few screws loose and ready to jump off the deep end.  Either way.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on February 24, 2012, 05:37:00 am
I guess I've always thought that maybe the gestation period has to be different *somehow* for werewolves. For instance, human gestation is +/- 9 months minus wolves at +/- 2 months = +/- 7 months for werewolves, assuming the fetus lived past the first couple of months and the mother survived to birth.

I've been thinking this because of the regenerative properties of werewolves (according to the Mercyverse) coupled with the shorter gestation of mundane wolves. The "combination" has to make a difference, even during pregnancy. My ex is white and obviously, I am not. Near the beginning of both my pregnancies, we had what was called a "genetic consultation" to discuss risk factors. After getting both our histories, my doctor told us that, basically, because we were a mixed couple with no history of some of the nastier genetic diseases that both our races could experience, our children were in the best possible situation because they would be at virtually no risk for these things. Of course, there are always exceptions and anomalies ... but I wonder with werewolves and humans if some of the same things would be true.







Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 24, 2012, 03:00:25 pm
I guess I've always thought that maybe the gestation period has to be different *somehow* for werewolves. For instance, human gestation is +/- 9 months minus wolves at +/- 2 months = +/- 7 months for werewolves, assuming the fetus lived past the first couple of months and the mother survived to birth.

I've been thinking this because of the regenerative properties of werewolves (according to the Mercyverse) coupled with the shorter gestation of mundane wolves. The "combination" has to make a difference, even during pregnancy. My ex is white and obviously, I am not. Near the beginning of both my pregnancies, we had what was called a "genetic consultation" to discuss risk factors. After getting both our histories, my doctor told us that, basically, because we were a mixed couple with no history of some of the nastier genetic diseases that both our races could experience, our children were in the best possible situation because they would be at virtually no risk for these things. Of course, there are always exceptions and anomalies ... but I wonder with werewolves and humans if some of the same things would be true.

Well two months divided by two is 1 month and nine months divided by two is 4.5.  So strictly splitting the difference and adding 1 + 4.5 = 5.5 months.  However who knows.  Wasn't Jade a werewolf?  I guess I assumed she had a full nine month pregers in human form.  But I also think it doesn't make a difference functionally if it was 5.5 or 9 months, it was still enough to kill her.

With my unconscious assumption of 9 months in human form I assumed a full 65 days in wolf form.  Werewolves have shown mass differences don't matter so much.  So 1 pound baby were - to 6-9 pound human not so much an issue.

Anywho I'm shocked and surprised that a modern day werewolf woman who wants kids or else some insane psyco medical institution, like the types we've seen already in the two series, hasn't explored the situation.  then the results found by us as the werewolves pursue a vendetta.  In short just plain eye opening that we don't know these simple things yet.




P.O.P.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Bethelriel on May 24, 2012, 08:58:30 am
I haven't read every post in this topic, so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating what another has already written, but after reading (and loving) this series of books, I kind of look at the whole werewolf pregnancy thing differently.

Pregnancy, in human terms, is a natural thing - something humans do without fear (well, for the most part).

However, from a werewolf's perspective, the process could be viewed somewhat differently.

Pregnancy is a parasitic relationship at best. The host feeds a parasite until said parasite can no longer gain enough nourishment through the relationship and must be 'born' to continue feeding and growing. (I love kids, have 3 of my own, so no hate mail please)   :)

A baby, inside it's mother, will take whatever it needs to survive and grow, regardless of what it does to the mother (the host). No matter if her bones and teeth weaken and become brittle, her skin stretches and dries, her hair falls out, she becomes diabetic, her kidneys start to shut down, etc. - and let’s not even talk about the dangers of labor and delivery.

It would also be the same in the animal kingdom, where wolves die every day giving birth to their young.
 
From a werewolf's perspective, the inner wolf, anyway, this would be a definite danger to their human side - so what’s a wolf to do? 

Is it necessary for werewolves to begat little werewolves to continue their species?

No?

Then why would a werewolf allow a pregnancy to come to term when it threatens their human side in oh so many ways?

It may even be so instinctual to protect their weaker side, that the pregnancy is terminated without conscious thought on the wolf’s part.

Since most werewolves struggle to rein in their wolf on a good day, this might be something that the human side isn’t even aware has been taken out of their control. 

And as far as using the Fae to help a werewolf carry a pregnancy to term - do they really want to teach the Fae how to control their inner wolf for months at a time?

Really?

Are there ways around this?

Perhaps...

A human side that is able to recognize the problem and then keep the wolf completely calm during the pregnancy.

Maybe.

But it would be a daily struggle and it would only take one brief moment of laxness on the part of the human for the worst to happen.

Possible...yes.

Probable...that’s for Patty to decide.  :D

Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on May 24, 2012, 09:19:22 am
Interesting points.  I still don't see how the "HAVE to change at the full moon" could be prevented, whatever the human wants, and that physical process being too much for the enormously busy fetus(es) to deal with, but if you could get around that...
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 22, 2012, 11:01:52 pm
Interesting points.  I still don't see how the "HAVE to change at the full moon" could be prevented, whatever the human wants, and that physical process being too much for the enormously busy fetus(es) to deal with, but if you could get around that...

If you are underhill, regardless of how time moves on the outside, my understanding was that it was a separate world.  I've certainly never heard that the earth moon, moved in underhill.

Couldn't underhill be a potentially moon free experience?  Regardless of if time went faster, slower or the same?

Cause if time went faster on the inside, I don't remember hearing about any wolves changing from moon inspired stuff.  Something to explore.

The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on July 22, 2012, 11:12:13 pm
Underworld probabaly has it's own moon. Which may or may not have the same effects on werewolves.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Victorymon on July 22, 2012, 11:16:17 pm
uhm, about full moon and underworld/not seeing the full moon... I know this is off-topic but I know a story with a monster, and that monster turns into stone during daylight.
and it doesnt matter if the monster was out in the open, under water or 10000 feet under the earth, the body knows that the sun is outside.

and from what I understand about the whole wolf/human pregnancy-thing, the baby get killed by the change. right?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Zealith on July 22, 2012, 11:19:49 pm
Seems to be the most common theory, though there is also the one that suggests the mother's body recognizes the fetus as being 'alien' to the body and rejecting it. This makes a little more sense for why human women can't give birth to a werewolf child than why a werewolf can't.

Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 22, 2012, 11:24:54 pm
Werewolf bodies reject anything that's not optimal, including cancer, right?  So to the werewolf body, a fetus is not part of the optimal body.  Buh-bye.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on July 23, 2012, 08:16:08 am
Maybe that's the reason, not the change (remember, healing happens faster when a werewolf changes).  The female's body sees itself as getting rid of a parasite, which in the strictest sense, a fetus is... so when the fetus reaches a certain stage in development, the female werewolf's body starts to identify it as a threat to her safety, and goes to work getting rid of it.

Perhaps the reason Charles's mother died when he was born has as much to do with having had her magical healing abilities inhibited or stopped as it did with forcing her body not to change at the full moon.  In other words, maybe she just plain got sick, but everyone thought the symptoms were due to pregnancy, because, after all, she's a werewolf and they don't get sick.  Not changing could have exacerbated the problem, weakening her further, but what if the real, central issue is that the magic screwed up her immune function?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on August 07, 2012, 04:34:39 pm
The one problem with that scenario is the info we get in Fair Game where Samuel tells Anna about the werewolf who stayed in werewolf form long enough to give birth, but ate the baby. Since she was able to bring the baby to term, it sounds like it is the change that is the problem for female werewolves.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on August 07, 2012, 04:39:22 pm
Copy and paste from another thread:

Re: another question about werewolf children.
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2008, 09:35:08 am »
Hello everyone   

Boy, this whole notion that the werewolves can't have babies has really brought out some good suggestions and generated a lot of thought.  I think it's sweet that so many readers want the werewolves to be happy that they've put time into thinking up ways around the problem.

 Patty's been going with the whole "The violence of the change causes a miscarriage early in the pregnancy".  The change is violent and painful -- and would be like kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, hard.  If you imagine a woman who get's kicked in the stomach a couple of times a month, it's hard to see her successfully bearing children.

There wolves are also anachronistic, and other than Samuel, few of the old wolves have really embraced modern medicine (after all, they don't need it).  However, we got a really well reasoned letter the other day from reader who was obviously a little upset that the wolves didn't appear to be taking this problem seriously -- no wonder all the female wolves are bitchy grumpy.

So, Patty wrote to a couple of doctors we know and explained the situation as it exists in her books, and asked for either a medically sound confirmation/elaboration on why werewolves can't have children, or a way around the problems that could be discovered later.

From a world-building standpoint, the wolves probably should be doing more to allow the female pack members to bear children.  From a story-telling standpoint, having a whole bunch of pregnant weres is awkward.   I don't know what Patty's going to do with the situation, but it's obviously important to the readers so she's taking a closer look at it. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: issah26 on March 24, 2013, 04:48:21 pm
what if mercy and adam had a child that was a werewolf, but had the benefits of being a walker (fast change, magic immunities, etc)?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 03, 2013, 02:46:03 am
what if mercy and adam had a child that was a werewolf, but had the benefits of being a walker (fast change, magic immunities, etc)?

I tend to think that's a given... assuming Mercy violates her moral code and has a kid.

I mean I figured out a way around her intense desire not to have a kid grow up in her current mess, have them and raise them under hill where time runs real fast.  But sadly I fear such an option is not the preferred modus operandi of a woman who really honestly doesn't care if they're not 'children' anymore.  She can't stand the thought of losing her kid.

Now if she sudden found herself banged over the head and dragged underhill only to escape and suddenly find herself second trimester with her and adam's kid and back in the real world... I wonder what her decision would be!



The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Baum Diggity on April 03, 2013, 04:25:57 am
I tend to think that's a given... assuming Mercy violates her moral code and has a kid.

Frost Burned spoilerish ahead, but it's from the freebies given out early on:

Hmmm...from her reaction in the first chapter, I don't think Mercy doesn't want kid, she seems to like the idea of kids. I think she dislikes the idea of being a baby factory for someone who perhaps doesn't truly love her, just what she can do for them.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 03, 2013, 04:44:25 am
I tend to think that's a given... assuming Mercy violates her moral code and has a kid.

Frost Burned spoilerish ahead, but it's from the freebies given out early on:

Hmmm...from her reaction in the first chapter, I don't think Mercy doesn't want kid, she seems to like the idea of kids. I think she dislikes the idea of being a baby factory for someone who perhaps doesn't truly love her, just what she can do for them.

I'm sure she can feel the love through her mate bond as well as thoughts.  Thus can know that baby factory is not at all on Adam's agenda.  Ergo the problems are not from outside factors (IMO) but from issues within her own internal head space.  She's got this whole, I like kids and would like to have them, but the risks are just too great, they'd never make it out of childhood.  I won't put myself or my hypothetical kids through that greif!  But baby factory?  That was one of Sam's considerations for wanting her for a mate and that's why Sam was ever so politely shunted to the side and dumped, put on the back burner, etc, even though and despite his needy mental instability issues.  Not Adams.  He's another kettle of fish entirely!

Now if we are arguing that the trauma of having a previous potential mate (or series of potentials) want her for a baby factory transcends the ability to 'know with with a high degree of certainty' when every time Mercy dips into Adams head that this is not at all what he wants....  I can totally get behind that argument.

I figure if you could put her down into a cookie cutter life, without constant threat of death and I think she'd totally go for 2.2 kids.

Her kids would probably be similar to Charles in as much as they'd have werewolf 'extra' powers and effects.  Although quite possibly a smaller werewolf form at the same time.  That said I figure they'd be fairly different powers from what charles actually has.  He's got witch and shaman blood on either side and some exposure to shaman teachings.  Mercy on the other hand is more quasi-divine through Coyote bloodline and Adam's got zilch other than his werewolf nature.  So there would be big differences on a root level, that ultimately manifested in a way that would give them more similarities than not.

But I could be all full of hot air?


The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 03, 2013, 09:04:06 am
This IS all speculation, we're all full of hot air on this subject. :D
Mercy may (sort of) be first generation Coyote's child, and thus capable of having kids who are also Walkers without getting the gene from both sides, or she may not, since technically she's Joe Old Coyote's daughter.

If she's "daughter of a normal Walker" barring the absence of maternal reinforcement of the gene, then her & Adam's kids wouldn't be walkers, although if any of those married/mated with active Walkers, her grandchildren might be Walkers.   
Those type (and given my ancient rusty crude education in genetics, there could be kids with different variations on any of these) might have easier shift if they become werewolves, and might have heightened sensitivity to magic, possibly be better at manipulating pack magic if changed.  If not changed, they might have some sensitivity to magic, like Isaac of Boston's grandfather's ability to see ghosts.

If her & Adam's kids were Walkers, I don't think that they'd be much different from other 'modern' Walkers.  They would need to find others of their ilk to have their children inherit the abilities of Walkers.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 03, 2013, 05:54:38 pm
This IS all speculation, we're all full of hot air on this subject. :D
Mercy may (sort of) be first generation Coyote's child, and thus capable of having kids who are also Walkers without getting the gene from both sides, or she may not, since technically she's Joe Old Coyote's daughter.

If she's "daughter of a normal Walker" barring the absence of maternal reinforcement of the gene, then her & Adam's kids wouldn't be walkers, although if any of those married/mated with active Walkers, her grandchildren might be Walkers.   
Those type (and given my ancient rusty crude education in genetics, there could be kids with different variations on any of these) might have easier shift if they become werewolves, and might have heightened sensitivity to magic, possibly be better at manipulating pack magic if changed.  If not changed, they might have some sensitivity to magic, like Isaac of Boston's grandfather's ability to see ghosts.

If her & Adam's kids were Walkers, I don't think that they'd be much different from other 'modern' Walkers.  They would need to find others of their ilk to have their children inherit the abilities of Walkers.

I guess my honest response is that... it would depend on how badly she wanted her kids to be Walkers like their mom... or else how badly she wanted them to decide if they'd rather be Walkers or not.  If she put her mind to it, I bet her own decisions would put a lot of umph into what her kids could and could not be, regardless of double or single bloodlines!

.... Then of course, there's always what Grandpa Joe has to say about the whole matter!




The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 03, 2013, 10:59:23 pm
Magic or no, I think you're putting way too much weight behind "Mercy wants it to happen, it'll happen."
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 03, 2013, 11:54:55 pm
Magic or no, I think you're putting way too much weight behind "Mercy wants it to happen, it'll happen."


You think she has to be prompted by the Coyote first?



The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 04, 2013, 12:09:42 am
Not precisely.  More that (as a non-random example) what she did about Adam's silver poisoning used some of her magic, some of the pack's.  Fine.
Plain old gestation isn't ordinarily about magic.  Genetics for (basically) human stock aren't (as far as I know in Patty's Mercyverse) affected by what the mom wants, however whoop-de-doo her father.  This isn't Dorothea in McCaffrey's "Pegasus" collections.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 04, 2013, 12:53:30 am
Not precisely.  More that (as a non-random example) what she did about Adam's silver poisoning used some of her magic, some of the pack's.  Fine.
Plain old gestation isn't ordinarily about magic.  Genetics for (basically) human stock aren't (as far as I know in Patty's Mercyverse) affected by what the mom wants, however whoop-de-doo her father.  This isn't Dorothea in McCaffrey's "Pegasus" collections.

I was thinking more along the lines of the initial pregnancy.  For instance 'I am the daughter of Old Joe' doesn't necessarily give any gal the natural ability to carry a were-baby to term.  Sadly in this mythical realm being 'I am the daughter of Coyote' rule breaker and magic buster extrodinare, just actually might.  Is she the daughter of Joe or the Coyote?  And is Coyote the only one of the two who have any say in this small minor little matter?  I tend to think given her father's status, 'belief' might actually, in this specific case, factor in.








The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 04, 2013, 09:42:44 am
Looks like we agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: charmed on April 04, 2013, 03:55:48 pm
Not precisely.  More that (as a non-random example) what she did about Adam's silver poisoning used some of her magic, some of the pack's.  Fine.
Plain old gestation isn't ordinarily about magic.  Genetics for (basically) human stock aren't (as far as I know in Patty's Mercyverse) affected by what the mom wants, however whoop-de-doo her father.  This isn't Dorothea in McCaffrey's "Pegasus" collections.

I was thinking more along the lines of the initial pregnancy.  For instance 'I am the daughter of Old Joe' doesn't necessarily give any gal the natural ability to carry a were-baby to term.  Sadly in this mythical realm being 'I am the daughter of Coyote' rule breaker and magic buster extrodinare, just actually might.  Is she the daughter of Joe or the Coyote?  And is Coyote the only one of the two who have any say in this small minor little matter?  I tend to think given her father's status, 'belief' might actually, in this specific case, factor in.

The Deposed King

Is this wishful thinking on your part or do you have specific information from the books backing up this assertion? Please provide exact quote, book title and page number. Thanks :)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: big city wolf on April 04, 2013, 08:29:59 pm
In River Marked it says at page 164 of the hard cover book, that the walkers originally only needed one parent to also be a walker, but it eventually changed to where they needed both parents.  Sooo, since Mercy is Coyote's daughter, her children  would be walkers. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Baum Diggity on April 05, 2013, 02:56:54 am
Do you think there are Punnett squares for this sort of thing?  :P
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on April 05, 2013, 05:50:20 am
This has been a very interesting thread. I'm enjoying it. Now jumping in.

I'm gonna echo Charmed's sentiment. There is no evidence to suggest that Mercy can will herself certain abilities in her 'verse. Usually, her abilities have manifested under stress of some kind. Or by accident. But I seem to recall there are times she wished she could do something and it doesn't actually work--at least temporarily (I'm thinking the mate bond here and how wonky it was in the beginning). Like any ability, she has to grow into some of these things and learn how to trigger/use them.

I'm remembering that Samuel thought his children with Mercy *might* survive because Mercy doesn't have to make the physical change to become her coyote self--thus that stress on her gestating body would not be in play. I'm also thinking about the other side of the equation--human women aren't able to carry to term a baby who is born werewolf because their bodies reject the fetus and they miscarry.

Mercy's mom is wholly human; her dad was wholly human, but he was "possessed" for a short time by a native american god-construct. Mercy was conceived while Coyote was possessing Old Joe Coyote. At most then, Mercy is at least 1/2-3/4 human::1/4-1/2 scion of construct walker. Let's round things out and say she is half 'n half. Mercy would be conceiving her children with a werewolf. Werewolves don't consider themselves human. (I would argue that they retain some humanity. But for these purposes, let's say they are not.) So Mercy's children--mother is half human::half walker, father is 100% werewolf--might inherit as much as 1/2 werewolf::1/4 human::1/4 walker. Of course, throwing in the calculations from a punnett square, there are going to be a lot of possibilities. But basically, not *all* her children are going to have the same abilities. Some could be more wolfy, less walker; others could be more walker, less wolfy; still others could be more human, less preternatural.

Isn't speculation fun?!
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on April 05, 2013, 06:07:53 am
Online Punnet Sq calculator (http://www.changbioscience.com/genetics/punnett.html)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: big city wolf on April 05, 2013, 09:14:07 am
But Coyote makes his own rules.  In River Marked it stated that Coyote's grandchildren were able to shift also and it was insinuated that possibly several generations after that could too.  Wasn't Joe just a Coyote construct, so Mercy is really Coyote's daughter.  She just doesn't admit it out of general attitude.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 05, 2013, 09:31:13 am
I wouldn't call it attitude... More like stopping a war between Coyote & Margie from getting started.

Werewolves & children, more than Mercy & children, this thread, yes?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: lostbird on April 05, 2013, 11:14:58 am
But Coyote makes his own rules.  In River Marked it stated that Coyote's grandchildren were able to shift also and it was insinuated that possibly several generations after that could too.  Wasn't Joe just a Coyote construct, so Mercy is really Coyote's daughter.  She just doesn't admit it out of general attitude.


Joe Coyote was not a construct. Joe Coyote was human, a native american. He died in a car crash. Coyote is the construct (or spirit, or God). Coyote tells Mercy that he is not her father in the sense that humans consider that relationship. Clearly, she is his daughter on some level since she gets her walker ability from him. There is a lot of gray area here. But I do recall that Coyote tells Mercy that Old Joe Coyote is her father, not him.


I don't remember in RM where it said anything about Coyote's grandchildren being able to shift. What grandchildren? There is Mercy (pseudo-daughter). Who else? I remember some of the other walkers talking about their own relationships to their totems, but not Coyote. I could be wrong, of course. Haven't read RM for awhile. Do you have a page #?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kkat07 on April 05, 2013, 01:00:09 pm
In River Marked, pg 162-164 Gordon talks some about Coyote courting a girl, and them having children and grandchildren.
On pg 196, Coyote says that he created Joe, and lived in him until he died. So he was a type of living construct, at least the way I interpreted it. (page numbers are from hardback version).
I'll shut up now before the Patti and the other mods axe me for continuing off topic. :)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: big city wolf on April 05, 2013, 05:10:36 pm
On page 164, Gordon says that Coyote had a child with a human and that child could change and her children could also change.  Then he talks like most walkers could do that with just one parent but that ability kind of died out.

The chief's daughter, who was, for a while, Coyote's wife, had a daughter -- and she could walk as coyote or human, as could her sons.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 05, 2013, 08:56:19 pm
I wouldn't call it attitude... More like stopping a war between Coyote & Margie from getting started.

Werewolves & children, more than Mercy & children, this thread, yes?

I agree... that said: Mercy's got to be one of the top 2 or 3 candidates for actual bonified werebabbies.  ergo so long as we don't donate more than?  a third of the thread to werewolve children? via mercy liniage we should be golden.

To sound off regarding the next most likely werechild/werebaby factory how about Anna?  How long do you think she could supress a change in either format?  Wolves have a much shorter gestational period than the hoo-mons (humans) I wonder if she could ride out an actual change and survive.  I mean we know that some magic stopped Charle's first wife from changing, could it be used in reverse for Anna.  In wolf format, normal wolves gestate for only two months.  So get impregnated right after the first full moon, and deliver before the second and your kids are only half a week preme.

Seems a highly doable pregnancy for me.  Now human souls and survival of pups to have humanlike mental abilities.  That's a kicker.  So if we go the hoo-mon route, I got to think that  Anna would have a much greater chance of surviving long enough for the pregnancy to advance to the point that a NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) could bring them along the rest of the way.  She's a werewolf, her wolf doesn't have the same issues as even other werewolves.  Sam's wolf was losing its mind being in control for too long.  Charles and his brother wolf seem to have a different dynamic, and anna and alter wolf-ego could end up very similar except that her wolf is younger and less developed.  Anna even had some, fairly nebulous, speculation about it although I fail to recall the exact quotes or books.






The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on April 05, 2013, 09:50:19 pm
1. Werewolves are not plain Grey wolves.  Or Red wolves, or Maned wolves, or actual Canids at all. 
We have no idea what a werewolf gestational period would be if they didn't spontaneously abort.  It might be eleven months instead of nine!

2. "Charle" - presumably meaning Charles Cornick  - has never been married before meeting Anna.
Bran, on the other hand, was married as a human & had at least the one son, Samuel by his entirely human wife.
Bran's second wife, Blue Jay Woman, used her Flathead magic to stop herself from changing with the full moon, using her life force to do it.  And could only do so up to normal human gestation period, which presumably was long enough for either normal gestation for Charles' birth, or else his werewolf "optimal health" magic pushed him past/through any neo-natal difficulties he might otherwise have experienced.

3. Full moon the first:  April 26.  Full moon the second:  May 25.  Time between the two - April being a 30 day month - 29 days.  Not exactly "half a week preme" at 29 vs. 60 days.  More like UNDER HALF GROWN.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on April 05, 2013, 10:52:50 pm
1. Werewolves are not plain Grey wolves.  Or Red wolves, or Maned wolves, or actual Canids at all. 
We have no idea what a werewolf gestational period would be if they didn't spontaneously abort.  It might be eleven months instead of nine!

2. "Charle" - presumably meaning Charles Cornick  - has never been married before meeting Anna.
Bran, on the other hand, was married as a human & had at least the one son, Samuel by his entirely human wife.
Bran's second wife, Blue Jay Woman, used her Flathead magic to stop herself from changing with the full moon, using her life force to do it.  And could only do so up to normal human gestation period, which presumably was long enough for either normal gestation for Charles' birth, or else his werewolf "optimal health" magic pushed him past/through any neo-natal difficulties he might otherwise have experienced.

3. Full moon the first:  April 26.  Full moon the second:  May 25.  Time between the two - April being a 30 day month - 29 days.  Not exactly "half a week preme" at 29 vs. 60 days.  More like UNDER HALF GROWN.


Right right, I was mixing up Bran and Charles as it relates to Charles being born.

Part of the reason the second wife died was the extended period carrying the werebaby.  I figured suppressing only 1 moon cycle can't be as bad as suppressing 8 or 9.  And its true 'we' have no idea how long a werewolf in wolf form would need for a successful pregnancy.  Alas if the cannon is unclear and 'if' we cannot draw examples from both sides of a werewolf's heritage... speculation would seem to be contraindicated for this type of thread.



The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: issah26 on July 05, 2013, 02:47:40 pm
people are mentioning that it is a necessity at this point for all walkers to have walker children both parents have to be walkers. mercy only has one walker parent. I think that this means that she is Coyote's daughter. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 05, 2013, 08:15:39 pm
people are mentioning that it is a necessity at this point for all walkers to have walker children both parents have to be walkers. mercy only has one walker parent. I think that this means that she is Coyote's daughter.

Coyote is a spiritual creature that feeds off legends and belief.  I think that as long as Mercy does not fully believe that she is coyote's daughter.  That instead she is the progeny of Old Joe, that her powers will continue to be minimized.  But that if she and enough other people believe that she is able to do something.  That this will help feed her supernatural size and held her ability to do things that others can't.




The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 06, 2013, 12:37:38 am
You did read in "Frost Burned" where she was saying/thinking that she's not Coyote's daughter, because if she was, she'd have to hunt him down & hurt him for abandoning both her mom & her, right?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 07, 2013, 03:49:25 am
You did read in "Frost Burned" where she was saying/thinking that she's not Coyote's daughter, because if she was, she'd have to hunt him down & hurt him for abandoning both her mom & her, right?

Yep.  I took that to mean that she wasn't ready to hurt and kill coyote and thus was denying the heritage.  And didn't want to think too much more deeply about it any longer.

Regardless, if she is the daughter of a minor deity, I would still maintain that if she fail to believe in herself and no one else believes in her as a part deity that whatever divine powers she manifested would work to suppress her divinity.  On the other hand if she believed in herself as a part deity....



The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 07, 2013, 09:41:18 am
Okay.  That makes sense.  Belief, in oneself as well as in gods, is significant.
Plus the whole, "she wasn't ready to hurt and kill coyote and thus was denying the heritage."  She just found him, and doesn't want to alienate him, or start some kind of feud.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: maydayp on July 20, 2013, 12:04:52 am
people are mentioning that it is a necessity at this point for all walkers to have walker children both parents have to be walkers. mercy only has one walker parent. I think that this means that she is Coyote's daughter.
my assumption was that both parents needed to come from the Native Americans rather then walkers. (at least my assumption was that the emphasis was on the fact that her mom was Caucasian thus no Native American ancestry rather then needing to be a walker.)
I mean there aren't a lot of walkers around.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 20, 2013, 12:11:52 am
If a Primal is a parent, both parents don't have to be native/have the "walker" gene.
If not, then both parents need to carry the "walker" gene, & until Mercy, only natives have had it.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 22, 2013, 04:13:50 am
If a Primal is a parent, both parents don't have to be native/have the "walker" gene.
If not, then both parents need to carry the "walker" gene, & until Mercy, only natives have had it.

We know that Primals make walkers and that when the bloodline is diluted you need walkers from both sides.  But its not clear how sharp the deliniation is.  Can a 1st gen walker make walker babies from strictly their own bloodline?  I don't know that its cannonized yet?




The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 22, 2013, 08:37:56 am
It's not that I'm aware of, but I did think of this a bit last night, during my re-read of "River Marked" - unless they practiced incest, the second generation of walkers should have been okay to have one walker parent.  So Mercy's children, unless being half anglo works against her, should be walkers.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 22, 2013, 11:23:20 pm
It's not that I'm aware of, but I did think of this a bit last night, during my re-read of "River Marked" - unless they practiced incest, the second generation of walkers should have been okay to have one walker parent.  So Mercy's children, unless being half anglo works against her, should be walkers.

Quasi-Primes instead of Demi-primes?  Or is that Semi-primes (snickers).

Although in fairness it wouldn't be incest for the prime-son of eagle to get it on with the prime-daughter of condor.  Same with wolf/coyote or other admixtures.  Technically 'incest' might not be absolutely necessary.  Taht said I'm pretty sure there were some wolf-on-wolf (and other similar types) shifter action in there at some point.  Cousin to the nth degree or not it all comes back to the Prime parent.  If the gene or whatever it is went recessive.  You could still have shifter types popping back into the gene-pool at some point I suppose?




The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on July 22, 2013, 11:32:13 pm
Possibly, if the Primal in question married a few women around the same time, within a generation of each other, in the same area.

Also, I had another thought; if Mercy ISN'T Coyote's daughter, but "Joe Old Coyote's", then... maybe she's technically the "second generation" I was speaking of, and not first from the Primal.  So... maybe her children with Adam would not be shifters, although if they married/had children with other walkers, their children (Mercy & Adam's grandchildren) might be?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on July 23, 2013, 06:53:30 pm
Here's a weird idea for shifter powers.  Mercy's kids 'have' to change with the full moon because they're weres.  On the other hand in addition to the instinctive european shift that comes along with the moon (that very painful kind), they also have Mercy's ability to shift in an instant and with zero pain.  So unless they tried to stay hoomon for too long during a full moon (like if there was a mercy type adventure going on), they might be able to avoid a lot of those pain filled forced to shift with the moon moments?  And if the 'walker shifting' allows for retention of fetus, this might make her kids the new perfect hybrids for the lupine race!

Somehow though I 'doubt' that Old Joe was a first gen shifter.  Its possible I'll concede that.  But the likelyhood seems very low to me.






Prince of Pain
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Nille on September 24, 2013, 01:03:27 am
I believe that Old Joy was Coyote, but was walker and had his own mind. so i believe Mercy is technically Coyotes child. In Frost Burned Coyote also tells Mercy something about, that Coyotes children don't have to follow the rules. In Mercy's and Adam's dream then Mercy take all the silver.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: pjfrisch on September 27, 2013, 03:27:37 pm
I thought that all the children of a werewolf would have to be human to survive, and only have a wolf as a father.

(I know, I know:  Charles is an exception, but only because BOTH parents were werewolves, and Blue Jay Woman practiced "magic" to enable her to carry a child to term, and died because of it.) 

The children of werewolves can CHOOSE to attempt to become werewolves themselves, to try to survive the mauling and magic, but it is not something they were born as.

Note:  Dr. Carter Wallace, who was killed by Bran because he couldn't control his wolf, was the son of a werewolf.  His own son was a werewolf, but Dr. Wallace was not a werewolf until the end of his life, when he CHOSE to become (or try to become) a werewolf.  Not all those who attempt to become werewolves succeed. 
 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on November 27, 2013, 06:59:33 pm
I thought that all the children of a werewolf would have to be human to survive, and only have a wolf as a father.
What I've picked up is that all human women miscarry werewolf babies, and werewolf women (except for Blue Jay Woman due to magically halting the change) miscarry all babies.  So my theory is that if Adam and Mercy had a kid, and assuming that Mercy is able to carry a werewolf baby to term due to her coyote half being compatible with the wolf (given that the wolf portion of werewolves are not morphologically the same as regular wolves, and with magic involved on both sides, this is not necessarily the case), the resulting offspring could be wolf, human, or walker.  Or some combination of the first and third.  This is how I think it works:

(If you're not into genetics, ignore me...)
And when I refer to an allele or genotype, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily thinking of it as a literal DNA genotype/allele.  I'm simplifying by treating the conditions as if they are definitely DNA related, when of course we don't actually know.  But IMO, they act that way. 

1) Based on the prevalence of miscarriages by human women carrying the offspring of werewolves, and the possibility of human offspring born to werewolf fathers, it is my opinion that werewolfism acts as a dominant allele, with all werewolves theoretically being heterozygous (Wh) and all humans being homozygous recessive (hh).  A hypothetical homozygous dominant (WW) individual might be indistinguishable from a heterozygous individual; WW could be a lethal genotype; or WW could confer either an advantage (ie, extra strength/speed, higher dominance, increased likelihood of being Omega if inherited, some kind of advantage in the pack magic) or disadvantage (ie, less control of the wolf).  Charles would, of course, be the only possibility for inherited WW genotype, since each of his parents possessed a W allele, but any were who has not had any offspring survive to birth since being changed could possibly be WW, given that only hh offspring are viable (other than Charles).

That said, Adam is clearly Wh, since he's a werewolf but has a human daughter born after he was changed.

There's got to be other genetics at work, to define the wolf half of the werewolf, but it's completely switched on or off by the master W and h alleles. ***

2) Given what little we know about the complex patterns of inheritance in walkers/avatars - that the child of a walker is not necessarily a walker and the likelihood of being a walker appears to decrease with each generation away from the original Primal parent, but many generations out, walker children might still be born if both parents have a Primal in their ancestry, my guess is that there are many 'genes' controlling whether or not an individual is a walker (each acting as a dominant allele, with the original Primal parent being homozygous dominant for all necessary genes and the first generation offspring being heterozygous.  With each generation, if only one parent descended from a Primal, the likelihood of independent assortment removing a necessary 'gene' increases, but if both parents have a partial walker genotype, they could pass on to their offspring a full set of walker genes. 

Mercy's father was a man who was Not Coyote, but who Coyote was, or however you want to define the complex relationship between Joe Old Coyote and Coyote himself... in any case, my guess is that she's a first generation Walker with a full set of closely linked coyote walker genes.  I'm not sure if that gives her a 50% likelihood of her offspring being a walker, or a higher-than-50% likelihood due to magic or some kind of lethal allele.  But we'll assume 50% likelihood for the purpose of this discussion.

That means that 50% of Adam's kids would be werewolves, and 50% of Mercy's kids would be walkers, and since they're clearly not controlled by the same genes, the two are not mutually exclusive. 

So if Adam and Mercy had 4 kids, they could theoretically have all of the following:
A werewolf kid
A walker kid (***given what I said about werewolf genes defining the wolf half but a master gene determining whether or not the individual is wolf or human, I suppose that it's possible Adam and Mercy could have both coyote and wolf walker children... in which case I wonder if the wolf walker would look like a real wolf or more like his/her dad's wolf... in any case, this is different from the werewolf/walker kid below because he/she would not have the accelerated healing or increased strength of a werewolf.  Since Mercy is part of the Pack and can use the Pack bonds, I'm assuming that her walker children would be in a similar situation)
A human kid
A werewolf+walker kid

How's that for a crazy family, huh? 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Varg on November 28, 2013, 05:48:48 am
Hmm, interesting.

And that would definitely be an interesting family! :D
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: big city wolf on November 28, 2013, 11:53:27 am
In River Marked, someone says that all of Coyote's children and children's children for a number of generations are able to change to coyote.  So theoretically all of Mercy and Adam's children would be able to change to coyote and maybe or maybe not a werewolf.  So if one of them gets seen as a werewolf, poof and there would be just a coyote there.   O)
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Kyria on November 28, 2013, 09:32:32 pm
I thought I remembered something like that but wasn't sure. 
I don't think coyote walker DNA would necessarily mean the offspring would turn into a coyote (or that a walker+werewolf kid would turn into both a coyote and a werewolf).  The kid could have one hybridized shift form, or inherit only the magic of one parent with the form of the other (ie, turn into a coyote but otherwise have all of the advantages and disadvantages of being a werewolf, such as fast healing, control issues, and long, painful shifts; or turn into a werewolf but otherwise have all of the advantages and disadvantages of being a walker, such as slow healing, little self-vs.-animal dichotomy, and fast, painless shifts).  The genes or magic could partially cancel each other out. 
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Patti L. on November 28, 2013, 11:28:27 pm
Not to mention things like silver issues, or lack of same, need for pack, moon requirements for shifts or lack of same.
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: ladychaos on December 08, 2013, 07:48:44 pm
I wonder could the offspring of a walker and a werewolf be a hybrid of some sort?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: pjfrisch on January 26, 2014, 02:20:24 pm
I just saw a PBS show on the "CoyWolf", a cross between a certain Canadian wolf and a coyote.  Their environment is north of Toronto, although they are sometimes found in cities.  I couldn't help but think of coyote Mercy and wolf Adam.  Talk about your urban fantasy!  So, who says that wolves and coyotes aren't compatible?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Pendle on February 01, 2014, 02:54:03 pm
Yeah, but are weres and walkers?
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: Prince of Pain on February 12, 2014, 05:55:00 pm
I bet her magic suppression can deal with were-baby magic induced natural abortions!  Why she'd probably only have to be laid up under bed rest for the last trimester.




The Deposed King
Title: Re: Werewolves and Children (General Theory Discussion)
Post by: SCoutts on February 24, 2014, 06:17:05 pm
I seem to remember that this was addressed in one of the earlier books. Mercy mentions that weres can't have babies because 'the change' causes a natural abortion. But she doesn't have to change each months, and mentions she has gone for long periods without changing when she lived with her mother (I think she said years).  But it was never explained why humans can only carry the 'human only' fetuses. Since Charles' mother could carry a werewolf fetus, presumable it is the human system that is incompatible with the werewolf fetus.
So if Mercy isn't too human, she should be able to compatible with a werewolf fetus.
I feel a little silly spending the time to work this out in my head. But one thing I really appreciate about Patricia Briggs' books is that the world building 'works'. Little inconsistencies tend to pop out at me and pull me out of a story; especially when I re-read a book. But that doesn't happen when I read Ms. Briggs.