Return to Index  

Was not too disturbed by the article, except . . . ETA

September 19 2011 at 12:00 PM
Maggie in VA  (Login maggie1961)


Response to NPR's "Making Babies" series - story on donor conception

 

The title more properly should be "A New Openness for Donor Kids About Their *Genetics*". True, legal fathers of kids conceived with donor sperm are not their biological fathers, while moms of kids conceived through donor egg are their biological mothers, but using "genetic" would have made it correct in either case. Also, the article seems to imply that all IVF implies donor eggs, which we all know isn't true, and DE cycles are probably the great minority of IVF cycles (I would think?). Wrote a post to that effect, but I don't think I successfully jumped through all their hoops to get it accepted. Maggie (in VA)

Edited to add: my comment did get added.


    
This message has been edited by maggie1961 on Sep 19, 2011 12:22 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

  1. Amen, Maggie. nt - thesameboat on Sep 19, 2011
  2.  
  3. Yes, the language was offensive - minniet on Sep 19, 2011
    1. For me, not so much offensive as . . . - Maggie in VA on Sep 19, 2011
      1. Barge to Maggie - cotton on Sep 19, 2011
        1. Actually this is not new technology - called cytoplasmic or nucleic transfer - BBG on Sep 19, 2011
          1. I had heard something about a controversy about mixing DNA . . . - Maggie in VA on Sep 20, 2011
            1. Oh, I'm sure they are but you never hear anything about it anymore - BBG on Sep 20, 2011
              1. Clarification, I don't understand why RESEARCH was banned - BBG on Sep 20, 2011
     
  4. Glad you posted something - Renata on Sep 19, 2011
    1. My OB said I would surpised. - Raindrops1 on Sep 19, 2011
     
Find more forums on FertilityCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement