Prior to the recent advancements in medicine and technology, couples who could not conceive

naturally had little to no options to having a child of their own. However, such advancements
have allowed for couples to not only be limited in adoptions but rather can face the possibility of
having a child that share their characteristics and they can finally call their own. However, with
every medical procedure, there are certain complications that are at risk of arising. These
procedures allowing infertile couples to have children such as in vitro fertilization are also at risk
of errors even at the fault of the own medical facilities, resulting in children being born with
different genetics than the very own woman that give birth. The question therefore arises whether
a mother constitutes as the individual who gives birth to the child or whether it is the woman
who shares the same genetics as the child. My colleague and I believe the woman who gives
birth to the child should therefore be known as the childs mother.
A mother is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the woman in relation to her child or children
and has given birth to them. Though it can be argued that a mother or a parent in general does not
have to be biologically related to the child, however no one can deny the emotional attachment a
mother feels with her infant immediately after birth. Familyeducation.com explains practices
done such as the nurse placing the child on the mothers chest for the bonding process to begin.
This emphasizes the idea that birth mothers are already emotionally attached to their children the
minute they are brought into this world.
The argument arises whether a woman who gave birth to twins, one being hers and one not
having any genetical relation, due to a mix-up with the fertilization clinic, who would the mother
be. Those opposing my colleague and Is view may argue that the mother in fact should the
woman who the child is genetically related to, however this issue is not as straightforward as it
may seem. Many jurisdictions do not have any legislation governing situations pertaining to the

birth mother not being genetically related due to a mix up. Some legislation, such as the UKs
Human Fertilization and Embryo Act 1990 states that the woman giving birth to the baby is
deemed the legal mother. Even in situations whereby there was a surrogacy arrangement, the
birth mother can still eventually change her mind and fail to give up the child without any legal
repercussion. In an American case where a black couples embryos were accidentally transferred
to a white couple, resulting in the white couple giving birth to twins, one not being theirs, the
court did not pressure the birth woman to give up the child. They only could receive custody
after she willingly gave them the child, after reflecting on the years that they also were trying to
conceive. However, it can be determined that the legal mother is the one who went through the
ordeal of child birth and gaining an emotional attachment to the child.
By depriving Elizabeth of the child she birthed, would be putting her at risk of emotional distress
and anxiety which could further affect her and as a parent to her other child. Therefore, my
colleague and I can conclude that Elizabeth should remain the mother of both children as she is
legally entitled to be their mother.