Talk:Heirs of the body

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think I understand the meaning of "natural descendant" and "heirs of the body"--that the relationship must be biological, and that an adopted child / heir does not qualify. However, nowhere does the article SAY that, and indeed, the whole discussion is rather circular / oblique.

Furthermore, reproductive technology is raising questions almost unimaginable fifty, and certainly a hundred, years ago. Where the question is who is a natural descendant of a female, what if she had a child with an egg that another woman donated? What if another woman carried a child created with the egg of the woman in question? Indeed, we are near if not at the point when a child might be born with the DNA of more than one father and one mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.66.7 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points, especially about the issue of adopted children. I wanted to read on here what 'heirs of the body' means with regard to adoption, and the legal issues of adoption and 'heirs of the body'. These issues are not addressed in this article. I think the article would benefit from the input who knows about adoption law and its effect on the concept of 'heirs of the body'. Boleslaw (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]