I just found out that it is common practice for two lesbian women to have a baby together with a man.
Woman 1 gives up her eggs. They are fertilized with sperm from a donor. The fertilized eggs are placed in Woman 2’s uterus. The baby grows and is delivered. I understand why they would want to do this, but seriously, WTF?

Does this kid have the DNA of three people?

This is like Dolly the lamb. I think we might be going a bit far with science. What are the health risks? I don’t know a lot about this topic, I’m pretty ignorant to it, honestly. I do feel like there could be some really unexpected side effects. When happens when these children reproduce?

WTF is all I can think of.

I’m pretty sure the baby does not get any DNA from “woman 2” in your scenario.

quote:

Does this kid have the DNA of three people?

A semi-educated guess: it would only have the DNA of the original sperm and egg suppliers, not the surrogate mother's.

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Does this kid have the DNA of three people?

No.

In vitro fertilization. It's been going on for years. They're just putting the embryo in a different uterus than the (egg) donor's. Not a big deal, unless you consider all of the other embryos that they kill.

They also do this when one woman cannot carry a child, but her eggs are still good, implanting them in a surrogate. There's really no risks, aside from the usual associated with pregnancy itself.

It won’t. The cells are already there they just multiply. The only thing he or she will get from mom 2 is O2, nutrition, and a home.

Well color me stupid.

I still think it’s weird.

As already mentioned, just developing in a different uterus will not transfer any host DNA to the egg. So only 2 haploid sets.

But I would wonder why the egg is transferred to the other woman. Just so they both can participate in the birthing process?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
But I would wonder why the egg is transferred to the other woman. Just so they both can participate in the birthing process?

Yes, that is exactly why. Plus the eggs came from the butch woman and the ladylike woman carried the children.

Both women were really nice, and their kids were really awesome, well behaved, polite children. I have to honestly say, they are a really nice family.

It just doesn’t sit very well with me for some reason.

Two Lesbo's want a baby. Just screw a guy and be done with it. Might take a couple tries. All the better.

I'm surprised none of the legal experts here mentioned it, but....

where it gets interesting is if they "divorce" and both want a claim on the child as the "parent"

Done correctly there is some paperwork to be done up front, but if not, it becomes messy quick with the poor child left in the middle.

You forgot the part where they then sue the sperm donor for child support.

What if they went through all of that and then woman 2 decided to get an abortion…

Well in the old days they just called David Crosby.

Well, that makes sense, but I never considered the rationale. I’m not sure if it’s like that every lesbian case, but I could see why. Clarify: I just saw you note that it was common. I know a few couples, and I don’t believe that was the situation with them, but frankly, I’ve never asked for specifics; I just know the dom carried at least 1 of their 2.

And I think that’s how they worked it. Where one carried one child and the other carried the other, with donor males. No swapping eggs. That seems like a ridiculous waste of money to me and a higher risk for the embryo, all so someone can feel more involved? Jesus, I hope every dad here feels involved enough without having to go through all that.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading a study in the recent past that found the child’s DNA in the birthmother’s brain.. male child, anyway (that was how they knew, because they were Y chromosomes). So maybe check that birth mom’s DNA! Interesting study.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Two Lesbo's want a baby. Just screw a guy and be done with it. Might take a couple tries. All the better.

or you could use a Turkey baster, it has been done.

Upon birth, gestational mom can develop antibodies to both the “dad” and her wife. If she ever needs a transplant she’s been sensitized to the child and her wife and will need to look outside that immediate family space.
Admittedly a remote concern, until it’s you.

Immunities are passed to the child during gestation, birth and breast feeding. So the child indeed has contributions from both women.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
It won’t. The cells are already there they just multiply. The only thing he or she will get from mom 2 is O2, nutrition, and a home.

And maybe benefit from child support when the "loving couple" invariably breaks up a few years down the road.

No! What am I saying? The dude would be the one who'd be paying.

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:

Does this kid have the DNA of three people?

This is genetics, not bean cooking.