Question for you: Genetic dilemma
Find a Conversation
Question for you: Genetic dilemma
| Tue, 07-03-2007 - 9:22am |
A Canadian woman recently made a stir in the genetics world by donating her eggs to her daughter to be used in the future. The daughter, who is 7 now, has a genetic disorder that will render her sterile. As an adult, if the daughter decides to use her mother's eggs to carry a child, she will actually be giving birth to a sibling, a half-brother or sister.
Though genetically this is a fact, do you think the act of carrying the child "makes the mother" and not the origin of the DNA? Let's have your thoughts...
Here's an article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6264082.stm
Not really into Siggees...
Not all who wander are lost.
(J.R.R. Tolkien)
Edited 7/3/2007 9:22 am ET by cl-binkeebee

Well, to avoid a lot of weirdness, I think the person giving birth should be the mom as she is raising the child. I don't think this information is going to be psychologically or emotionally easy for the child to handle when grown up and finds out. Of course, it's now public knowledge, so some big mouth will say something at some point and the child may learn of its genetic mother accidentally and likely not be able to handle it without A LOT OF counseling at that point. And classmates can be very cruel. :-\
I would be very concerned about the potential child inheriting health problems or tendencies to poor health. The daughter has a genetic disorder already. Was it inherited from her mother? The article isn't clear. Is there potential for the potential baby to be born with the same problem? I think personally I'd rather not, myself. Adopt or accept being CFBC and spare the child an identity crisis, IMO.
Also to be considered, the genetic disorder ALSO produces learning disabilities, according to the article. Would this daughter, when grown, be capable of handling parenthood and a marriage? She's only 7. The article didn't indicate the degree of learning disability, if any, which may not get really apparent until she is older.
A lot of concerns, IMO. I just don't think it's a good idea. No moral judgment on my part (although I *do* wonder if this isn't a kind of incest albeit through laboratory facilitation), but more concerns as to practical and potential consequences like passing on the genetic disorder or the learning disability, for quality of life for both the daughter and the potential offspring. I wouldn't want to take that chance, myself.
Gypsy
)O(
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(
I'm infertile and I personally wouldn't want an egg from my mother because I have a sister that would donate one (which I've decided not to do though but that's beside the point) ... but if I didn't have a sister and I was close with my mother, I might want the donation. IMHO just like an adopted child is really your child, a donated egg is really your child. You wouldn't have to advertise where you got it. At least your child would know what family they came from. It wouldn't be like a strangers egg where you don't know their family and the child, if you told them, would always wonder where they are from.
I think very much that after having the fertilized egg implanted, being pregnant and giving birth, she would totally be the mother.
** "You know, Hobbes, some days even my
lucky rocketship underpants don't help." ~ Calvin
I think the reply from #2 has good reasoning,. if the daughter has a genetic problem it probably was from her mother so the baby would probably also have the problem of worse.
This world is nuts, people try to play God by saving eggs. If god wanted the daughter to have a baby she would. Perhaps adoption could help an orphan and perhaps that is God's purpose for people who can't have children.
There are plenty of orphans all over the world that need mothers. If the daughter wanted a baby bad enough she has that option.
Louise
mmm, funny, I live in Canada and I haven't heard of this item! anyway, I don't watch news that much either.
But I did go to the article to read and what comes across to me? is always the fact that I see more the panic of the mother, not ever having grandchildren.. and that the scientific society is jumping on the bandwagon, in every way possible. for science.
I don't know what to think of this, really. As I can't agree that women giving birth are neccessary the mother of the child. I think of all those who were adopted and have adopted parents. and at the end of the day, always feel closer to those who raised them.
I raised myself and I also have suffered from identity crisis in the past. So I do know what that entails and feels like.
One can have sons who never want to marry and never have children either, then one is still stuck with the fact, that one has to accept the fact that one will not continue to exist through ones own children and grandchildren.
To me? it has more to do with the mother's need and science is using it up to the hilt..as it sees opportunities for itself, than that it really will serve a purpose for the highest good, for the mature child later on.
I'd say, we better put this on the backburner and see in 20 years time, what the child thinks off all this! IF she is at all able to make an independant deciion, without presure of her mother then.
My two cents worth? greets, brush