The woman who gave birth to it. She has bonded more with it.
24% (22 votes)
The woman whose genes make up the child. She is the rightful mother.
19% (18 votes)
It depends.
47% (44 votes)
Neither.
2% (2 votes)
Other (please explain)
8% (7 votes)
Total votes: 93
I think that the woman whose genes are bonded to the child should keep it. Because the woman who carried it had to make an agreement to do so. So she knew from the start that the child would not be hers.
You're misunderstanding the question. We're not talking about a surrogate mother, we're talking about two women going in for in vitro fertilization to have their own child. They get implanted with the wrong embryos, and so give birth to a child that is not biologically theirs, even though they paid to have their own child.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Oh Im sorry. But in that case it kind of depends. Because they would each be attached to the child they've been carrying so it would be hard to say
I can't even imagine how horrid it would be for this to happen. The way I see it, unless there is something that makes the mix up obvious I do not see how they would realize the mistake. Of course, the clinic that did the procedure might end up realizing it and tell the parents. That would be when the decision is to be made.
I would be furious if that happened to me or someone I know. I don't think I could honestly know if I would want to keep the baby that is not biologically mine, but then again I know I'd have a hard time giving up something I was carrying. If I was the other mother I would certainly want my biological child, but I would have felt cheated of the pregnancy.
The Heathen's Guide
PRIDE
ENVY
GLUTTONY
The cases I've heard of it happening were where the child was definitely a different race than the parents... a black child being born to white parents typically.
They could theoretically find out through blood type as well (if the mother was O, and the father was A, then the child isn't theirs if it has B or AB blood).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It's really hard to say. First instinct would tell me to let the mother decide, but if one of the babies ends up with a terminal illness, of course the women would most likely choose the healthy child.
Labs need to be extremely careful not to make this mistake in the first place to avoid this error all together. I'm assuming that most women pay for in vitro due to difficulty conceiving. Why add insult to injury by screwing it up?
If a woman has been carrying a baby for nine months there is already a bond with that child. Of course the baby will not inherit the same traits as its mother but it doesn't matter.
Personally if that happened to me. I would want to keep the child. And I would actually want to see my real child also. But I wouldn't take her/him away from the woman who gave birth to it. There is a bond there that no one can explain. I wouldn't want to mess it up. And who knows maybe the mix-up created a bond between the mothers. They can become close, as well as the kids.
Jasmin Muniz
I voted "it depends" but I think in most situation it would be better for the child to be with the parents it already bonded with.
"Excellence is the result of caring more than others think is wise, risking more than others think is safe, dreaming more than others think is practical, and expecting more than others think is possible."
The women should come to an agreement about the children that they have. There should be no set on who gets the child. But I lean more towards the woman who gave birth to the child because she is bonded with the child already. If the women want their actual children, then they should switch babies. But, it all depends on the situation, really.
I could understand if a mother had a child that didn't necessarily look like her and be quit upset about it, but personally, when you carry a baby around for 9 months and feel that child move within you, how could you not be connected to it? There is a women at my college who is a theatre performance major who got pregnant and decided to give it up for adoption. But, one day, she came to rehearsal and told us that she felt the baby move inside her and react to her voice. And it was at that moment she decided to keep the baby and make things works. Even though in-vitro doesn't let you make the baby, i believe you are still bonded to something that depends on you for life.
~Visit my blog and tell me what you think!~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ccbauman
Thanks!
I think it is utterly inhumane to force a woman to give up the child she has carried for nine months and GIVEN BIRTH TO. So it has someone else's DNA. SO WHAT? What on earth does that matter? O.o
Well... it matters to the biological parents. What if the child they gave birth too has a genetic disease from the parents? Or if it has the likely hood of being an alcoholic?
They didn't choose that, they paid thousands of dollars to have their own child, not somebody elses. So that is why it matters. And there are many more reasons but I won't list them.
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Or what if one of the mothers has a miscarriage?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
O.o What does that matter?
If one of the mothers has a miscarriage, she'll be more inclined to fight for the child that is biologically hers, won't she? Who wins when two women fight over one baby, instead of having two babies to share?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The mother who has that baby IN HER BODY, of course. What's the other woman going to do, force her to have an abortion? Force her to carry the pregnancy to term and then give up the baby to her? Force her to give up a baby she has carried for nine months and given birth to?
These instances are typically verified after birth. While the fertility clinic may suspect it before birth, or the moms choose to do DNA testing, HIPAA laws protect the privacy of the couples, so that no identifying traits can be said about them. So it's not possible that the other woman would force an abortion.
And courts have decided to give the baby back to its biological mom. So it is a valid question.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'm not saying it isn't a valid question, just... it seems so ridiculous. DNA should NOT determine who the mother is! The mother's the one who gave BIRTH to him/her. x.x
That still doesn't give them the right to someone else's child. If it bothers them that much they can abandon that child to the adoption system.
I think the fact that it was their egg and their sperm that created that child matters.
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
It depends...
...on who wins the cage match.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Why am I not surprised that you said that?
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
It's time for the main event, the Virto Mix-up Slam Down!
Lets get ready to RUMMMBLE!
Cage match? More like death match. You've seen girls fight in high school, right? Now, add a kid and motherly instincts into that mix....
amp;
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Ok, this confirms it, the majority of people who use this site are PC. Saying it depends is the nice way of not making a choice and not offending anyone, congradulations.
"I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sons of bitches... Don't let them down and damn you, don't let me down!" General George S. Patton, adressing the 761st "Black Panther" Tank Battalion
No it's not. If the child is a different race than the birth parents, I'd be more inclined to say the child should go with the biological parents due to current societal pressures. If they were all the same race, I'd be more inclined to say the birth parents should keep the child. If one child died in the process, then I think it would depend on which is more capable of raising the child in a loving environment. Then, of course, the parents (both sets) wishes have to be taken into account as well...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
No, I said it depends on who wins the cage match. The woman who can beat the other woman into submission is obviously fit to be mother.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
It really depends on the situation. If the mother who gave birth to the child does not have a problem, why give the child to the "original" mother?
It seems a little crazy for the "orginal" to just demand her baby back, so maybe I'm leaning one way here. Still, I'll stand by the fact that the situation must be taken into account.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
If there was a mix up and both parents got children, they should get to work it out themselves. But if only one was trying to have a baby and the other found out about the mix up, they shouldn't get the child. They didn't want it in the first place so why do they want it now?
Umm... I'm not sure what you mean. People who go get in vitro fertilization are doing it because they can't have a child by natural means. Which doesn't tend to line up with 'they didn't want it in the first place.'
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Even though the genes that make up the child come from the biological mother, wouldn't the carrying "mother" also have a genetic influence on the child?
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!
Genetically, no the birth mother in this case would have no DNA influence. The child was fertilized before being placed inside the carrying woman, just like in a surrogate situation. Although, you can make the argument that the woman who carries the child has a psychological effect on the child determine by the foods she eats, the places she goes, and activities she partakes in. Plus, she would have an intimate connection with the child because he/she would adapt to the carrying woman's voice quality, which is a natural bonding technique. Biologically, the child would look and have traits from the biological parents, but would have naturally bonded with the birthing mother.
The Heathen's Guide
PRIDE
ENVY
GLUTTONY
Hmm.. I get what you're saying. That's quite an interesting fact.
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!