Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

Of course the birth mother has bonded with the child. No one is questioning that.

But the question remains, what is best for the child?

And if you had trouble conceiving and went through IVF... and then you found out that your baby was born to a stranger (unmarried, different race, needs money), how would you feel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Did you read that article? It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It’s shameful how the fertility industry has perpetrated this lie.

Can you not read?

"Human studies have shown that the biology of the surrogate mother can reprogram the embryo's epigenome and that any disturbance in the early stages of life, especially the critical period of prenatal life, will have programmed effects on lifelong health. This fact proves the biological link between the surrogate mother and the child in addition to the proven emotional relationship, and the surrogate mother can alter the child at the epigenetic level."

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

NP. Respectfully, this does not negate the genetic relationship between biological parents and their biological children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Did you read that article? It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It’s shameful how the fertility industry has perpetrated this lie.

Can you not read?

"Human studies have shown that the biology of the surrogate mother can reprogram the embryo's epigenome and that any disturbance in the early stages of life, especially the critical period of prenatal life, will have programmed effects on lifelong health. This fact proves the biological link between the surrogate mother and the child in addition to the proven emotional relationship, and the surrogate mother can alter the child at the epigenetic level."

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

You don’t even understand the study you’re citing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

?

Nobody is suggesting that the woman who carried the baby for 9 months didn’t feel a bond.

Rather, some of us are baffled as to why this woman’s feelings trump doing what’s best for the baby longterm.

If someone could magically swap out this baby with one genetically connected to the white parents, I bet they would agree to the swap.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's a couple weeks off the birth of my second I just can't see divorcing the connection you have with a baby you carry, not unless you're a knowing surrogate going in and are putting that mental distance in already.

I talk to him, notice his patterns, notice his hiccups, etc. We see him in the ultrasounds and my husband watches him kick. To me that's a connection that's separate from DNA. I'm in the thick of it right now but I had the same with my first kid too.

So if this couple had no reason to suspect this baby wasn't their genetic kid, mom would have gone through the same bonding and feelings.

I just can't dismiss that easily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Did you read that article? It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It’s shameful how the fertility industry has perpetrated this lie.

Can you not read?

"Human studies have shown that the biology of the surrogate mother can reprogram the embryo's epigenome and that any disturbance in the early stages of life, especially the critical period of prenatal life, will have programmed effects on lifelong health. This fact proves the biological link between the surrogate mother and the child in addition to the proven emotional relationship, and the surrogate mother can alter the child at the epigenetic level."

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Did you read that article? It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It’s shameful how the fertility industry has perpetrated this lie.

Can you not read?

"Human studies have shown that the biology of the surrogate mother can reprogram the embryo's epigenome and that any disturbance in the early stages of life, especially the critical period of prenatal life, will have programmed effects on lifelong health. This fact proves the biological link between the surrogate mother and the child in addition to the proven emotional relationship, and the surrogate mother can alter the child at the epigenetic level."

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Did you read that article? It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It’s shameful how the fertility industry has perpetrated this lie.

Anonymous wrote:First of all the Go Fund Me is just gross. Secondly it clearly states they didn’t consider her “their child” either

“ Tiffany had carried and given birth to someone else’s child. Their IVF doctor had implanted the wrong embryo.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?

You don't know how the IVF screwed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Why did the parents bother at all with genetic testing? What difference does it make?