Of course it does. DNA plays a large role in a person's life including their health risks. You'd want to your doctor to be honest with you about what they're putting in your body, wouldn't you?

If it doesn't matter, there's no issue being transparent about it.

Which is great for people that can't have or don't want to raise their own DNA. But there's no way I'm signing up for that. The fact is that DNA matters a lot, and the linkage between DNA and behavior is only just starting to be unraveled. Parenting matters a lot too, but it's not the whole picture.

I don't disagree with this, but the children have the right to know - for example, are there inheritable medical conditions which they may be at risk for? or if not medical, what about inheriting other traits? I think this paragraph summed up this concern well: "Ballard struggled with what it meant, existentially, to have inherited the DNA of a man who would lie to his patients and abuse his position as a doctor. Whatever made him do it, was that inside her, too? She knew the thought wasn’t entirely rational, but she couldn’t shake the feeling that a dark impulse might be lurking deep within her."

My experience with adopted children:

- It matters a lot to some

- It matters a a bit to most

- It matters little to none to some

The quotes from the article seems to confirm this. To pile on to that anecodotal eveidnce, here's another quote from an adoptee I know:

"Just because I know I'm way better off being raised by [adoptive parents] doesn't mean I don't feel abandoned by [biological parents]"

[edit]

And at least from a biological standpoint, since your brain was evolved for the sole purpose of aiding in spreading the genes you posses, it makes sense that it would matter to your brain.

I think this depends on if you believe that personality and ability comes from nature or nurture. I assume some would like their children to have traits similar to their own which could include personality/mental health, IQ, physical health, etc. You're reasonably bounded by each parents family history.

On the other side, you may be using a donor to exclude one parents genetics, due to a known genetic issue.

Getting some random guys DNA eliminates any sort of ability for selection, which is what choosing a partner, or choosing to not reproduce with a partner, is.

Truth be told I don't have a good argument against "Family is mostly socially constructed anyway"

But the idea of this not mattering, of the DNA not being very meaningful, seems deeply, deeply wrong. A gut feeling that says "Absofuckinglutely NOT".

It's fraud and it harms trust in the medical profession. It's like if you asked a tattoo artist to ink you with the Chinese symbol for "woke progressive" but instead they give you a tattoo that translates to "easily fooled."

In the case of switching the eggs, is it possible that the host mother would be more likely to reject it? Because in that case, I feel it's a fairly clear case in which you have directly affected one's ability to have a family by doing this.

Not sure about one woman's eggs in another woman, but this is certainly true of an anonymous sperm donor. In order to have the lowest chance of pre-eclampsia the woman needs to have been exposed vaginally to the man's semen for six months. Donor sperm children thus have higher rates of pre-eclampsia in pregnancy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24011785

Similarly, donor sperm has been shown to increase pre-eclampsia

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25282539

Not all sperm is the same, regardless of what the market or the fertility industry thinks. There's a purpose to the act of sex.

I would say yes.... for example if heart disease doesn't run in your 'family' but it does in the doctor's, it would be good to know.... same is true for other diseases

Do you not care if you raise a kid that looks like your doctor?