Donating eggs to your child

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    Now, the folks in the UK may want to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Times of London is a respected and erstwhile newspaper.

    So, why is it that the comments to the linky-dink article are so negative? I have issues with a good deal of genetic manipulation when it's done for reasons that won't help the greater good. But, I don't don't see how this is genetic manipulation, nor do I see anything wrong with it.

    It does say something to me that people try to equate DNA parentage as the be all and end all. I suppose if the daughter gave a future child up for adoption, it would have a biological mother, a birth mother, and a adoptive mother. Fascinating, yes. Wrong, no.

    The only comment that got me thinking was the concern that this may be a biological defect, in which case using the mother's egg may propagate or expose a child to risk, but if it isn't, what's the big deal?
     
  2. dogbone macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #2
    The only objection to any of this stuff including stem cell research (which has just been passed in OZ) comes from religious nutters who want to ram their beliefs down everyones throats.
     
  3. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #3
    Does it? What is the readership of the Times like? There are a lot of American comments, but also a fair bit from others - where folks aren't as religious (or so i've been led to believe).
     
  4. dogbone macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #4
    I should clarify, I mean official objections from people with power to influence. There will always be people who don't understand the issues. For example people who are concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide in their toothpaste.
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    I think you've hit the nail on that one. People who have had serious health issues when they were young generally live shorter lives. The children they bring into the world are also likely to have health issues. Even though the egg isn't her's, it's possible that her body simply couldn't handle the pregnancy, or, if it did, the child would be the one to suffer.

    IVF has meant that a lot of people are being born today that just a few years ago, wouldn't have been. I'm no fan of eugenics but I'm also no fan of burdening the health system with a child that is going to require expensive care. The risks are extremely obvious and are well known to the physicians involved. Unfortunately, there's simply too much money involved in IVF and the women are too desperate to have children. They would rather have a seriously damaged one of their own than adopt a healthy one.
     

Share This Page