Point of importance: is this a pseudo-confusion?
The author makes the mistake of associating the term "mother" and "parent", we can speak of mother in different senses, medically it's defined as the biological contributor, socially, it's the child's caretaker. However there is no confusion in the two definitions; social, lawful, & medical references agree that when it comes to a child's trace, the beginning stems from the "parents" not biological contributors. Any other issues are mediated through the "parents" because they deem all the responsibility of death and are thus credited his or her life too.
I agree. With each new scientific development, we get closer to giving couples that can't have children the "normal" way means to achieving this. Everyone would probably chose to have a biological child of their own, with some exceptions, and these new developments help parents get closer to achieving this. I think there are some legal aspects that might scare people away from this avenue
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebekah, this is amazing for those not able to have children. Now they can contribute genetically to their child being born. The only problem would be just as with surrogate mothers, if the mothers caring the childwould want to keep the child. I think that would be the main problem. I think if a child were to co tract a disease due to the surrogate mother the child nor the child parents would be able to sue the mother. I believe McGee was stating this in jest. However, with most scientific discoveries we don't know the problems until something goes wrong.
ReplyDelete