This summer I'm working on an infertility research project, and I have had the opportunity to go to clinic with my PI once a week. I've already been introduced to several ethical and legal issues that face the rapidly evolving field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. One hotly debated topic is surrogacy. The legal hurdles to using a surrogate mother point to the question 'who is your mother?' The medical procedures for surrogacy have been efficaciously developed, but now the legal cost and process pose the major barriers for many.
In Texas, even before beginning the process of in vitro fertilization, a couple must present to court with their surrogate and obtain a court order signed by a judge and all parties involved dictating that the child, who will be their's genetically, will also be their's legally. This is because in the state of Texas, if a woman delivers a child, she is the mother, unless otherwise legally specified.
If in utero epigenetic effects alter DNA expression of the developing embryo, then the child born to the surrogate may exhibit altered functioning (i.e. cardiovascular function, metabolism, etc.) from the same embryo had it been implanted in its genetic mother.
So then, do these differences make the genetic mother less of the mother? Or, does this even matter? If it does, where do adoptive mothers stand?
"The moment a child is born, the mother is also born. She never existed before. The woman existed, but the mother, never. A mother is something absolutely new." - Rajneesh