3 ms·
Thinking about it more wouldn't biological more relate to those who are linked biologically (the egg & sperm). The birth parents would be the mother who actual
by MrOwnPut 4y ago
Thinking about it more wouldn't biological more relate to those who are linked biologically (the egg & sperm).
The birth parents would be the mother who actually gave birth (and if existing, the spouse who is in the relationship with the birth mother).
This is would be much more prevalent of a distinction due to surrogacy.
- dragonwriter 4y agoI mean, the whole process of carrying a child is biological, so, I probably wouldn’t distinguish them that way. The general case in surrogacy (and exceptions to this usually involve someone who is identified as a “donor” of some material, rather than a parent) involve the suppliers of genetic material being the caretaking parties after birth, so typically the terms “parents” and “surrogate” suffice.
- MrOwnPut 4y agoSo if a family provided eggs & sperm and had a surrogate to give birth on their behalf, then later gave the child up for adoption, how would you identify everyone? Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.