telegraph.co.uk — Maja, appropriately named after the Roman goddess of fertility, is a symbol of hope to millions of infertile women around the world who could benefit from the same pioneering procedure which enabled her mother Susanne to conceive naturally.
Nov 15, 2008 View in Crawl 4
skywakeNov 16, 2008
explain to me how this is a triumph for Atheism? True, there are some religions where this would be frowned upon (hell, some religions frown upon surgery full stop) and some fundamentalist Christian is bound to be against it (you can find one against anything). Overall however I would say this is a triumph for science rather then atheism. I would wager that most people in the world would support this regardless of creed.
shenanijenNov 16, 2008
In this case, the child does have the same genetic code; only because the donor was an identical twin of the mother. Otherwise, I don't believe the genetics would be the same as the mother since women are born with all their eggs (stored in their ovaries).
th3wh1terabb1tNov 16, 2008
I came into this thread expecting a religious view being cited right off the bat... but this was a surprise
immatellyouwhatNov 16, 2008
Sc Lv S Yu Tu
someologyNov 16, 2008
My first thought on seeing the headline was also "well, it isn't any more her daughter than if she had a donated egg," but reading the article, the ovary came from her identical twin, which means the child is genetically the same as if she had conceived it with her own ovary, as identical twins have identical DNA. This is an exceptional case where there were other medical treatment reasons for the transplant. For most infertile women, however, I do think that embryo donation or something would be better. Avoid an unnecessary surgery, etc.
askantikNov 16, 2008
Adopt a child.