This is a scientific biological question.

[Hooked]

If a man or woman had their reproductive organs replaced by a donor, would their kid carry the donors dna?.

[alzoron]

If the sperm/egg wan't harvested previous to the replacement then yes.

[Mayhem]

yes and no

Mustnt even be because of a donor, can happen with chimeras too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/sc...anted=all&_r=0

"One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome."

[Hooked]

If the sperm/egg wan't harvested previous to the replacement then yes.

Ok so what if the egg and or sperm were new, are the reproductive organs imprinted with the original owners dna?.

[Barael]

In case of women yes since their eggs aren't being continuously formed so it depends on whether the eggs are included in the donation or not.

In case of men I think the question is a bit more complicated; I'd guess the donated reproductive system would (sooner/later/immediately?) start producing sperm that matches the dna of the recipient.

[Hooked]

Ok so say a laboratory was able to take an entire reproductive system from a male or female and hook up all the connectors, would the reproduction system need a dna input or is it already self contained?.

[alzoron]

Ok so what if the egg and or sperm were new, are the reproductive organs imprinted with the original owners dna?.

What you quoted answers this question.

[Hooked]

What you quoted answers this question.

Don't quote me boy cause I aint said shit.

[Caerule]

It's about the ovarium, which contains the female egg cells, and the testes, the male equivalent, that contain the cells that mature into a constant supply of sperm cells.

Ultimately it's just those parts that hold the DNA that we pass on to our children. All other parts can be replaced, and we'd still get children of our own DNA. But replace only these parts, and they will have the donor's genes instead.

[Orbitus]

Ok so what if the egg and or sperm were new, are the reproductive organs imprinted with the original owners dna?.

If a penis is some how say chopped off in an accident, and a donor penis from a dying patient is donated, if that is even possible, then no. The DNA is saved in the sperm. Now if a testicle is changed, which I would think is quite impossible as of this moment, then you would have an argument. Same with ovaries in a woman. It would have the DNA of the woman that donated them as far as I am aware.

[Hooked]

If a penis is some how say chopped off in an accident, and a donor penis from a dying patient is donated, if that is even possible, then no. The DNA is saved in the sperm. Now if a testicle is changed, which I would think is quite impossible as of this moment, then you would have an argument. Same with ovaries in a woman. It would have the DNA of the woman that donated them as far as I am aware.

I meant everything, the entire reproductive system. Is it a self contained unit?.

[Orbitus]

I meant everything, the entire reproductive system. Is it a self contained unit?.

No. It is not a self contained unit. Which is kinda why I think it is pretty much impossible to transplant either the testes or the ovaries.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I meant everything, the entire reproductive system. Is it a self contained unit?.

where are you going with this what are you planning

[Independent voter]

If a man or woman had their reproductive organs replaced by a donor, would their kid carry the donors dna?.

Looking at your posting history, why are you asking this?

[Azadina]

Looking at your posting history, why are you asking this?

I'd imagine for a new twist to the "Obama is Muslim from x, y and z place" conspiracy theory

[Deleted]

If I recall right, reproductive organs aren't replaceable because of extremely high rejection by the body (to the point where it will kill the foreign donor organ). They can be used for repairs, but complete replacement is impossible outside of identical twins and in very rare cases where parent and child was compatible.

[Hooked]

I'd imagine for a new twist to the "Obama is Muslim from x, y and z place" conspiracy theory

Wrong, I was looking at crime statistics in chicago and noticed that 43 people this year have shot their own balls off by mistake, so it led me to wonder about this question.

[May90]

Wrong, I was looking at crime statistics in chicago and noticed that 43 people this year have shot their own balls off by mistake, so it led me to wonder about this question.

I think it should, instead, have prompted you to research the "sun of a gun" hypothesis.

[Simulacrum]

Wrong, I was looking at crime statistics in chicago and noticed that 43 people this year have shot their own balls off by mistake, so it led me to wonder about this question.

Well, if you... somehow... managed to transplant someone else's balls to yourself to replace your own off-shot ones, and this all worked out perfectly, you'd be ''fathering' children related to the guy whose balls you now have, not to yourself. As can be seen in chimeras, as mentioned earlier in the thread (which incidentally answered your question unambiguously). The same would go for women that did the equivalent. There have been cases e.g. of women giving birth to children that the rest of their body wasn't genetically the mother of, causing much confusion.

But, presumably, if you somehow managed to grow a pair of new balls (or whatever) from your own cells and grafted those to yourself in the right way, then you would be able to have kids related to yourself again.

[Hooked]

Well, if you... somehow... managed to transplant someone else's balls to yourself to replace your own off-shot ones, and this all worked out perfectly, you'd be ''fathering' children related to the guy whose balls you now have, not to yourself. As can be seen in chimeras, as mentioned earlier in the thread (which incidentally answered your question unambiguously). The same would go for women that did the equivalent. There have been cases e.g. of women giving birth to children that the rest of their body wasn't genetically the mother of, causing much confusion.

But, presumably, if you somehow managed to grow a pair of new balls (or whatever) from your own cells and grafted those to yourself in the right way, then you would be able to have kids related to yourself again.

That's what I was thinking also.