[JimSEA]

What about the biological issue? That’s all that really means anything. Idiotic.

[NYer]

What about the biological issue? That’s all that really means anything. Idiotic.

See my post #25.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The "Who's the biological mother" question can be complicated if the birth was by IVF, with one woman contributing an ovum (and thus being the true genetic mother) and the other woman carrying the child during pregnancy (and thus being the true gestational or birth-giving mother.)

The Brits are talking about having their NHS fund artifical reproduction with 3 genetic parents: the father (provides sperm), mother #1 (provides an oocyte with mitochondrial DNA), and mother #2 (provides haploid nuclear DNA to be inserted into the oocyte).

The purpose of this is supposedly to enable mother #2, if she carries a mitochondrial disease, to reproduce and have "her" genetic child by putting her genetic code into another woman's ovum.

I say "supposedly," because the whole push behind this kind of reproductive interference, is to eventually develop fully depersonalized human laboratory reproduction, long dreamed of by people who really, really don't like procreative sexuality.