I think so.
Since about 1985, it has been possible for a woman to conceive and carry a pregnancy conceived with another woman’s egg. When the woman carrying the embryo not conceived with her own egg intends to be the mother, we call her the “mother” and the other woman the “egg donor.” But when the woman who gives the egg intends to be the mother, we call her the “mother” and the woman carrying the embryo conceived with that egg the “gestational surrogate.” (It is confusing. Women who do the exact same things are legally determined to be the “real” mother or “just” the egg donor or surrogate, depending on how the adults in question wish it to be.) Either way, the result is an embryo and—ultimately—a child conceived from one woman’s egg, fertilized by the sperm of a man (who we call either the “father” or the “sperm donor”), and carried in another woman’s womb.
In part as a result of these innovations, scientists are learning a great deal about how the process of gestation affects the genetic development of a fetus. Apparently, during gestation the embryo’s genetic markers are switched on and off in reaction to the environment experienced in the womb. In other words, the woman carrying the embryo physiologically shapes the resulting baby’s DNA, even if her egg was not used to conceive the child, and thus she can be said to be a biological mother of the child as well. (And in fact, in the U.S. most state statutes say that the woman who gives birth to a child is the biological mother—these are among the statutes that must be circumvented to allow for the legalization of surrogacy).
Read more, starting on page 45 of One Parent or Five: A Global Look at Today’s New Intentional Families.
UPDATE: Also see Part II of this post.
Categories: Motherhood, Reproductive Technologies, The Future of Parenthood
[...] Marquardt at the Family Scholars Blog: Apparently, during gestation the embryo’s genetic markers are switched on and off in reaction to [...]
“It has been possible for a woman to conceive and carry a pregnancy conceived with another woman’s egg.”
This sentence is confusing. Its not like infertile women actually use donated eggs to conceive children. With permission, infertile women can carry other women’s embryos to term and by doing so get to experience pregnancy and delivery as they would if they’d been able to conceive themselves, but since they did not conceive, the babies they carried they will not be biological theirs.
WOAH! What utter bsht. No no scientists are not saying that gestational carriers are the biological mothers of these children! That is marketing spin by and for the infertile women carrying these babies. I have read the forums of women pregnant with embryos that are not theirs, they believe in epigenics which is the body of the carrier influencing the gene expression in the fetus.
For crying out loud of course the environment where embryos and children grow impacts the physical and mental development of the child. In some cases the embryo might be way better off growing in the body of a host rather than its mother and vice versa – same thing goes for children.
Carrying the child for 9 months is a physical investment but it does not change the fact that there is no maternal relationship. The carrier can influence the developing fetus by being too old an otherwise healthy fetus can be born autistic but it wont change the eyes from blue to brown. The best she can do is provide a healthy place for a fetus to grow but if she has health problems that cause clotting like i have for instance she will influence an otherwise healthy fetus to die the day he’s born like my son did. He was mine but it was my body not his that failed.
The ASRM is clear about that gestational carrying does not make a woman the child’s biological mother. The people perpetuating that roomer are delusional – they want to be related to the babies they are raising but they are not. Being separated from their mothers does not alter the underlying parent child relationship from a medical or genealogical standpoint. She is the legal mother of record because she gave birth because she can conceal the fact that its not really her child. Law is not calibrated with reality when it comes to biological motherhood. That is like number 1 on my list of stuff to fix.
From the ASRM
“[S]ince they did not conceive, the babies they carried they will not be biological theirs.”
Not theirs in the sense that the fetus wasn’t a product of one of their own ova, but theirs in the more limited sense that their environment of their body did influence the expression and non-expression of different genes in the developing fetus in ways that wouldn’t have happened had it been carried in another’s body. Without the mothers who carried them to term, those fetuses would have developed into definitely different babies.
Epigenetics is a fascinating field.
On the off chance any young people who know they were conceived via egg donation happen to read this, I would so much like to hear your story. You can contact me here:
http://familyscholars.org/bloggers/elizabeth-marquardt/#contactEM
Elizabeth were you being sarcastic when you said you think children can have three biological parent’s? I’m being lame and gullible taking your comment literally?
If paternity is positive the man is the father of the child biologically.
If maternity is positive the woman is the mother of the child biologically.
The biological origin of a child is its parents equally maternal and paternal.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. This really is what I am thinking. And I’m interested in what you’re saying.
No these chicks are whacked. This whole new-speak bio-genetic nonsense is just a method of giving women permission to say something that is not true. Even if they tell the child the truth walking around calling yourself the bio mother when you know you are redefining that term and most people will believe the child is your flesh and blood is a mind k for the kid has to be
here is the dillusional jargon about carriers being bio mothers put out as propaganda by people who profit..she is actuallynot the bilogical mother mut she will be legally treated as if she were because current law recognizes women that give birth as biological mothers because they use to be now they can pretend
http://www.victoriafertility.com/content/8/downloads/EggdonationandIVFwebsite.pdf
“The miracle that allows a woman’s immune system to accept an implanting embryo does
not require that the mother be genetically related to the embryo, and this has paved the
way for young women to donate their eggs to older women and allow successful
pregnancy. In vitro fertilization with egg donation allows a woman to still be the biological
mother by carrying and delivering her baby, although she would not be the provider of
the genetic package. Compared with adoption, egg donation is a wonderful alternative
which still gives her the opportunity of participating prenatally, experiencing pregnancy,
birth and followed by breast feeding – while still allowing her husband to contribute
genetically. Our experience is that by the time recipients of donor egg embryos deliver,
most of the concerns over bonding and relatedness dissipate as they become new
mothers. “
“This whole new-speak bio-genetic nonsense is just a method of giving women permission to say something that is not true.”
Marilynn, this is not the case. Epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics), though a new field of research and still rather surprising (who thought any version of Lamarckian evolutionary theory could be even partially true?), is perfectly legitimate. The fetal environment of a woman carrying an embryo influences the expression of the embryo’s genes, whether or not the embryo is the product of the woman’s own ovum. In a real sense, a woman carrying an embryo product of another woman’s ovum is that child’s biological mother, her own body influencing the fetus’ development.
The relationship between a mother and a fetus she carried not conceived using one of her ova _is_ closer than the relationship between a father and a fetus his partner carried not using his perm, for the simple reason that after implantation the fetus develops within and with the woman’s body in the same way that a fetus conceived with the woman’s own ovum would. The woman _does_ experience pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding. Why is the conclusion of the fertility centre necessarily incorrect?
I’ve never given this issue much thought, but it seems to me that the term “biological mother” would apply to a carrier, given that she and the child would have a relationship that is very much biological.
“Biological” is a very broad term. Genetics, gestational epigenetics, and raising a child all have measurable biological effects. It seems to me that whatever someone judges to be the value of those effects tells us more (a LOT more) about the beholder than the beheld. Read over the comments in this thread for examples.
So… I think any biological link between two people is a pretty dry and hollow thing without an actual interpersonal relationship. If whatever number of people can build a meaningful interpersonal relationship network based on those links, I guess I’m inclined to think the world is a better place than if they didn’t….whatever they decide to call it.
Hernan, Agree with you (again)..always enjoy your comments. My only comment (which says a lot more about me and my values) is when that immediate biological link, both genetically and epigentically, (ie. come directly from a father’s/mother’s/prodiginators body) is disregarded, rejected, hidden, regarded as *taboo*, it seems to be (from ancetodal evidence anyway) more of an (interpersonal/hurtful) *insult* than those biological links that are more removed.