- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mommies and Donors and Surrogates, oh my!
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 3:58 pm
An interesting peripheral issue arose in a thread regarding the James Younger custody case, and I thought it might make an interesting thread,
In that case, the ex-husband is the biological father of the child. The ex-wife carried the child in her womb, but used in vitro fertilization and donated ova from another woman. In other words, the ex-wife has no genetic link to the child.
One poster asserted that the ex-wife was not “really” the mother, and another asserted that she naturally had less concern for the child because they share no DNA.
I was wondering what other posters think about those assertions.
My experience is from the animal kingdom. We do probably 75% of our cattle breeding by some type of embryo transfer. Hundreds of calves per year. In other words, the VAST majority of our calves are not genetically-related to the cows that carry them, birth them, and raise them.
You do NOT want to get between one of those surrogate cows and the calves that they birth. By contrast, the donor cows sometimes share a pasture with them, and they could hardly care less about their genetic offspring.
Obviously humans will differ somewhat. What say you to those who assert that a human mother without a genetic link to the child she carries is somehow “less a mother” than a genetic mother?
In that case, the ex-husband is the biological father of the child. The ex-wife carried the child in her womb, but used in vitro fertilization and donated ova from another woman. In other words, the ex-wife has no genetic link to the child.
One poster asserted that the ex-wife was not “really” the mother, and another asserted that she naturally had less concern for the child because they share no DNA.
I was wondering what other posters think about those assertions.
My experience is from the animal kingdom. We do probably 75% of our cattle breeding by some type of embryo transfer. Hundreds of calves per year. In other words, the VAST majority of our calves are not genetically-related to the cows that carry them, birth them, and raise them.
You do NOT want to get between one of those surrogate cows and the calves that they birth. By contrast, the donor cows sometimes share a pasture with them, and they could hardly care less about their genetic offspring.
Obviously humans will differ somewhat. What say you to those who assert that a human mother without a genetic link to the child she carries is somehow “less a mother” than a genetic mother?
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:06 pm
10
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:06 pm to AggieHank86
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. There’s great biological moms and shitty biological moms. Same goes for non biological moms.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:10 pm to AggieHank86
Human behavior is much more complex than cow behavior. My sister and son are both adopted. While I don't care any more or less about them than I would a biological child or sibling they both make wildly different choices than I do when faced with similar circumstances and options. That can complicate matters.
I won't say that a non biological mother is any less of a mother given my wife's experience.
But some woman who wants to give her son hormones and whack off his privates to turn him into a girl is no mother at all.
I won't say that a non biological mother is any less of a mother given my wife's experience.
But some woman who wants to give her son hormones and whack off his privates to turn him into a girl is no mother at all.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:10 pm to OldmanBeasley
quote:I tend to agree. I think that a bond forms from carrying the pregnancy to term, rather than from some genetic link.
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. There’s great biological moms and shitty biological moms. Same goes for non biological moms.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:10 pm to AggieHank86
I don't know the legal answer. (See, honest and direct, try that sometime)
Also:
Genetically she shares no DNA with this offspring. It is not "her offspring" by definition.
Biologically she is not the maternal contributor of chromosomal material. So purely from that standpoint, she is not the biological mother.
Now as to being the vessel for carrying the baby during gestation, well yes. That would be another definition of motherhood. But if you bring legality back into it here, what about surrogates, what parental rights do they have? I don't know.
Also:
Genetically she shares no DNA with this offspring. It is not "her offspring" by definition.
Biologically she is not the maternal contributor of chromosomal material. So purely from that standpoint, she is not the biological mother.
Now as to being the vessel for carrying the baby during gestation, well yes. That would be another definition of motherhood. But if you bring legality back into it here, what about surrogates, what parental rights do they have? I don't know.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:11 pm to OldmanBeasley
quote:
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. There’s great biological moms and shitty biological moms. Same goes for non biological moms.
This is also true. I agree.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:13 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:At least in Texas, the “legal answer” is pretty straightforward. Legally, the woman who gives birth is the mother.
I don't know the legal answer.
Likewise the rights of surrogates are defined, though surrogate rights vary significantly from state to state.
This thread is addressing is somewhat more esoteric question.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:15 pm to AggieHank86
I think oldmanbeasley covered it well.
There is no need for shared DNA to be a good parent. This is known.
There is no need for shared DNA to be a good parent. This is known.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:17 pm to AggieHank86
AI in cattle is a common practice and the mothering instinct in cattle is different. Cattle have no logic, they do not comprehend they were surrogates, their instincts are manipulated by a prostoglandin or other drug to manage their fertility cycle.
Humans have the awareness the child is not genetically theirs. Most would have to be a monster to not care for a child even one conceived via surrogacy. Of course, I would argue a mother forcing a boy to become a girl is pretty much a monster.
Humans have the awareness the child is not genetically theirs. Most would have to be a monster to not care for a child even one conceived via surrogacy. Of course, I would argue a mother forcing a boy to become a girl is pretty much a monster.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:18 pm to AggieHank86
Me Anichka wants to use a surrogate to have our child. I'm not really opposed but wonder how much that would set us back unless we hire an illegal
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:20 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:AI and ET are quite different. An AI cow does share genetics with the offspring, while an ET cow does not. (We generally use AI as our second round of breeding, for cows on which the ET did not “take”)
AI in cattle is a common practice
As to humans, your theory is that the “surrogate” mother will care less for a child that she carries than would be the case for a child with which she knows herself to share DNA?
BTW, I started a fresh thread in an effort to keep the whole TG thing out of the discussion.
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:23 pm to AggieHank86
Why do the beginnings of these threads read so idiotically every single time? 12 words in and I feel like I’m going into convulsions.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:25 pm to kcon70
quote:Apologies if you are uncomfortable with my writing style. It is what it is.
Why do the beginnings of these threads read so idiotically every single time? 12 words in and I feel like I’m going into convulsions.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:25 pm to AggieHank86
The great moderate stalwart just compared women to cows
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As to humans, your theory is that the “surrogate” mother will care less for a child that she carries than would be the case for a child with which she knows herself to share DNA?
There's too much variability in human behavior to answer this. Again, there are good mothers and bad mothers, biology aside.
It is known though that the labor and delivery process itself is associated with neurohormonal induced bonding via pituitary oxytocin release. There are also serotonergic and dopaminergic mediators as well.
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:26 pm to gthog61
quote:Yes, I compared the basic reproductive processes of two mammalian species. I hardly see that as political.
The great moderate stalwart just compared women to cows
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:29 pm to gthog61
quote:
The great moderate stalwart just compared women to cows
Why are you trying to harsh everyone’s mellow bro? There’s nothing wrong with the question he posed
This post was edited on 11/7/19 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:30 pm to OldmanBeasley
quote:Thanks. Some just have trouble setting aside personalities.
Why are you trying to harsh everyone’s mellow bro? There’s nothing wrong with the question he posed
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:36 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Thanks for the input, but I was doing a follow-up to Iowa’s post.quote:There's too much variability in human behavior to answer this. Again, there are good mothers and bad mothers, biology aside.
As to humans, your theory is that the “surrogate” mother will care less for a child that she carries than would be the case for a child with which she knows herself to share DNA?
Posted on 11/7/19 at 4:46 pm to AggieHank86
Having researched/investigated fertility/adoption options, there were a number of things that we were alarmed at.
1) in Louisiana, if you use a surrogate for you and your wife's egg, then your wife will need to legally adopt the baby at birth as the surrogate mother is on the birth certificate. i can see some legal issue arising if the surrogate decides not to sigh adoption papers.
2) in agreeing to adopt a pregnant mother's unwanted baby, and paying her medical bills, transportation to dr visits, and the pregnant mother needs, up to and even a number of days after the mother can back out and you are left with nothing and no recourse for the money spent or any right to access the baby. even if you get to take the baby home they can still come get it.
there were others, but trying to wrap up to leave work
1) in Louisiana, if you use a surrogate for you and your wife's egg, then your wife will need to legally adopt the baby at birth as the surrogate mother is on the birth certificate. i can see some legal issue arising if the surrogate decides not to sigh adoption papers.
2) in agreeing to adopt a pregnant mother's unwanted baby, and paying her medical bills, transportation to dr visits, and the pregnant mother needs, up to and even a number of days after the mother can back out and you are left with nothing and no recourse for the money spent or any right to access the baby. even if you get to take the baby home they can still come get it.
there were others, but trying to wrap up to leave work
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News