Stealing a page from Sklad’s book, hypothetical situation: A lesbian couple want a child, wanting a genetic connection to the child. Which male relative is the best option for the sperm?
None of the above.
They’re all weird options IMHO, but I voted for father. After all, its considered normal to be a descendant of your grandfather, but not your uncle or second cousin.
Depends entirely on which of these people is the nicest/least crazy/best overall.
I would feel really strange if I was carrying my partner’s father’s child. Giving birth to your partner’s half brother or sister seems very odd to me. I don’t feel nearly as icky with the brother option for some reason.
I agree totally! I can imagine it skeeving the kid out!
Brothers and Sisters shouldn’t marry. Wouldn’t you end up with genetic problems from along these same lines?
No, the brother in this scenario is the brother of the lesbian who isn’t contributing genetically to the child. He’s unrelated to the child’s biological mother.
I’d probably pick the brother, if he was relatively genetically normal. Advance paternal age is associated with decreased fertility and fecundity, and increased birth defects. Plus, if I wanted the child to have a close relationship with the father, the brother is likely to live longer than the father and more likely than the cousin to maintain a lifelong relationship with the mother and child.
The brother. I think the kid could accept being related to his uncle, rather than the alternatives.
All other factors being equal (they’re all healthy, sane, etc), the brother. I’ve known a couple of people who’ve done that. It helps the baby be accepted by both families.
My immediate reaction was “ew” but once I thought about it I would say the brother.
As the father of two girls, I wouldn’t be able to spank one out knowing what it was for. Too much eeeeww involved.
I’d vote brother.
Brother. He shares the most genetic material with second mom, assuming they care about that sort of thing, and at least in my family, my uncles and aunts and cousins were like auxiliary parents and siblings, anyway. So Uncle Joe is the genetic father, Mom is the genetic aunt, any of Uncle Joe’s other kids are cousins and genetic half-siblings, and Grandpa and Grandma and all the other relatives are the same, genetically and relationally. Nothing weird about that at all, to me. People raise their nieces and nephews all the time.
Father is right out. Having the kid be their mom’s half-sibling would be too bizarre for everyone involved.
The cousin would be fine, but if you have the option of the brother, that would be preferable.
I would choose none of the above. I think it would cause problems in the future (unless they happen to have a dead relative who’s sperm is frozen).
I would go for either adoption or neither of the women contribute but one gestates the kid.
what problems?
This makes a lot of sense. I change my answer.
Why neither? For equality? Egg donation and implantation is a hell of a lot more difficult, expensive, painful and less successful than simple IUI of sperm (or the turkey baster method).
If genetic connection is the issue, it is clearly the brother. If other issues are in play then who knows, it will depend on the specifics of the woman’s (and also her partner’s) personal feelings about her family members.
Would anyone else like to admit to the confusion I felt when first reading this, not realising the emphasis on second mother, and wondering who on earth would want to have their brother or father’s kids?
Anyway I pick father for the same reasons as heathen earthling. I think it keeps things simpler.