Isn’t it already an issue with “surrogate mothers?” Just because you carry the baby doesn’t make you a “biological” mother. The sperm and egg define the biology of the kid. Seems like this would be a bad precedent that could impact the whole surrogate mother situation.
Parenthood is now a contract issue. A mother who uses a donated egg is the mother, the egg donors "rights" are an issue to the courts. Like surrogates.
Parenthood is now a contract issue. A mother who uses a donated egg is the mother, the egg donors "rights" are an issue to the courts. Like surrogates.
Hear me out. The man who provided the sperm is the genetic father and should have the obligation to provide for the child for the next 18 years and have a say in how the child is raised.. The woman who provided the ovum is the genetic mother, and the very same responsibility and rights as the father. The woman who gave birth is the gestational mother and should also have an 18-year support obligation.
Let's get the six grandparents, the sperm-donor's legal wife, the OB/GYN and the fertility lab technicians in there too.
The baby is the non-consenting experimental subject and victim, and should have a right to sue all three or nine or 12 of them.
If it is determined thst the whole blasted science project / social experiment has gotten so wretchedly complicated that the whole thing is recognized as "not in the best interests of the child," maybe we could get IVF banned.
Anything that wrecks the "whole surrogate mother situation" --- permanently--- would be a very good thing. IVF should be illegal.