Relevant article, this is a biological GQ question and not a debate about this particular event.
“Luikenaar’s surgical plan was to include a hysterectomy, the removal of both fallopian tubes and the excision of one ovary, court papers say. Shaw wanted the second ovary retained so natural hormones would still be produced and so Shaw might have a biological child one day.”
So how does that work? Surgically extract an egg then use a surrogate? And where does an egg go if it doesn’t have a means to travel to the uterus?
Yeah, apparently they used “natural” to mean “using her ova”. It would have to be a test tube baby grown in a surrogate, which AFAICT isn’t what one usually means by “natural”.
The word ‘natural’ only appears in the article in the context of hormones, which seems correct. The term ‘biological child’ is used - not implying natural fertilisation or gestation, but rather, genetic heritage.
Yes, but again not specifically related to the article: if the ovary is active, but the egg has nowhere to go to implant/be expelled through menstruation, what would happen? Does the (tiny) mass just keep building up inside the body? Does it matter?