Children Have Rights - Say No to Repro Tech

Blog Update

2009-11-07T19:37:00.000-05:00

For the time being, this blog is on hiatus, as I am not able to devote much time to it at present. I am still very interested in the issues, and expect to return to this blog in the future. Thank you for visiting!

IVF Children are a Living Experiment

2009-02-18T09:16:00.003-05:00

An article in the New York Times on Monday admits that children conceived with IVF are basically living human experiments. Scientists suspect that embryos that have developed in petri dishes are slightly different in some ways from embryos that develop in the womb, but they are still working out the specifics. They have some indications that IVF embryos are more likely to have certain genetic diseases and developmental problems. but they still need more data. The article says:

"following babies born after IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not easy. And if problems emerge from epigenetic changes, they may not be apparent until adulthood or middle or old age."

In other words, if you're an IVF child, then you are a walking human experiment. Scientists are waiting to see what will happen to you as you get older, so that they can complete their data collections on the effects of IVF on people.

Sounds really ethical, doesn't it?
.

Somerville says that Adoption and Donor Conception Are Two Birds of a Feather

2009-02-11T15:24:00.004-05:00

A great article by Margaret Somerville in today's Ottawa Citizen, the daily newspaper of Canada's capital city.

One of my favorite parts of the article is when she writes:

First, we need to distinguish between natural conception and conception where there is reliance on technology. It is one matter, ethically, not to interfere with a person's decisions regarding conceiving a child when that is a purely personal and private decision as it is with natural conception; it's quite another when society provides its resources to facilitate that outcome and the institution of medicine is involved.
With rare exceptions, such as the prohibition on incest or under-age sexual relations, when natural conception unassisted by technology is involved, personal autonomy and personal and family privacy must be given priority. In short, as Pierre Trudeau famously said, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
When technology is involved in conceiving a child, we are, however, not in the bedrooms of the nation, but the laboratories, hospitals and clinics of the nation. And the creation of new human life is not an outcome of private love-making, but of actions undertaken by health-care professionals using research and facilities paid for with taxpayers' money. That means the state has ethical obligations, in particular, to ensure the protection and wellbeing of the future children who will result from those activities.

I like the distinction that Somerville makes between natural conception and ART conception. Of course, infertile couples and others who "need" ART will gripe here - it's "not fair" that they should be singled out in this way for more government regulation in their so-called "private" childbearing decisions, when all those fertile bunnies get the government to turn a blind eye to their often irresponsible childbearing behavior. Treating donor-gamete childbearing like adoption may seem like yet another slap in the face for the long-suffering infertile couples, yet another indignity to be borne simply because they can't reproduce naturally.

That kind of objection makes some sense, admittedly, on an emotional level - no, it's not entirely "fair" that the fertile and infertile should be treated differently in terms of childbearing. But unfortunately, life is rarely fair (to begin with, it's not fair that some people should be fertile and others not). And infertile people are treated differently when it comes to adoption too - fertile couples who reproduce naturally don't have to prove to the government that they will be good parents, while infertile couples who try for children through adoption have to undergo home studies, etc., and prove that they will be good parents. Is it really "fair"? Maybe not, but who will argue that it should be otherwise? Who will argue that those who apply for adoption should be given the green light without any kind of investigation into their fitness as parents? It's obvious that focusing only on the fairness aspect is very limiting, inadequate and self-centered. After all, isn't the main point supposed to be, as Somerville points out, the "best interests" of the child?

Somerville is entirely right to point out the glaring similarities between adoption and donor-gamete conception (which is, in effect, a form of adoption). This is why she writes:

At the least, especially when the future child will not be genetically related to one or both parents, as happens when donated gametes are used, the conditions for having access to reproductive technologies should not be any less demanding than those for adoption.

I can't say I entirely agree with Somerville, only to the extent that I think donor conception should be outlawed entirely. In my opinion, despite the similarities between adoption and donor conception, there's a very big and fundamental difference between there two which Somerville has chosen to leave out of her analysis, at least for the time being. This is the central issue of INTENTIONALITY.

It's one thing for the state to allow adoption as a way to help a child that is already existing and in need. It's a completely different thing for the state to allow the creation of a child who will be permanently separated from one or both genetic parents. The former is an ethically good thing, but the latter is in my opinion a very unethical enterprise - in effect, the state is allowing the manufacture of adoptees - children who will face lifelong struggles due to the fact of their separation from biological parent(s) - merely to satisfy the market demand of childless adults. THAT is where the similarities to adoption come to a screeching halt and frankly, drive right off the cliff.
.

Octuplets Mother - Single and Obsessed with Babies

2009-02-02T09:32:00.002-05:00

As the glitter begins to settle around the supposedly wonderful story of a California mother named Nadya Suleman delivering octuplets, the story behind the story is beginning to emerge.

It turns out that Suleman, at 33 years old, already has 6 children who are under the age of 7. I would congratulate her for that, if she was raising these children responsibly in a marriage with their father. But it also turns out that she is still living at home, unmarried, and she depends on her mother and father to support her and her children.

And now, Suleman's own mother has been interviewed in the media and has revealed that her daughter has never wanted to get married, has always been obsessed with having children, and has had all (now 14) children via IVF using the same sperm donor. What's more, it seems that Suleman may have been paying for the IVF procedures by "donating" her eggs. Now that's a real "Single Mom By Choice"!

I find this story an absolutely appaling example of how we have completely lost our minds in this society. Our culture supports adults in becoming so narcissistic and self-centered that the results are absurd, as in this case.

For Suleman, having children seems to be similar to collecting pets - some people have a houseful of cats or dogs, but she has decided that her hobby is to breed children. And it's easier breeding children than breeding pets! No need to enter into complicated "stud" arrangements with other pet-owning families. There's no need to seek out a father anymore and enter into real human relationships - human sperm is cheap and available online.

Suleman now has 14 children with one man. He is not held responsible for these children in any way simply because he "donated" (read: sold) his sperm away. Suleman also possibly has who knows how many children with other men, the result of her own egg "donations" - and yet she is not held responsible for these other children simply because she sold her own eggs away.

Theoretically, there is no limit to Suleman's ability to have children via sperm donation. If she won the lottery tomorrow, she could hire a harem of surrogates and keep popping out her progeny via sperm donation for as long as she could produce viable eggs. Hey, if some sperm donors are known to have produced hundreds of children, why should single mothers by choice be deprived of that delight? These days, polygamy/polyamory is not required if you want to produce dozens and dozens of your own offspring. (and hey, if you can't support them all, there's always mom and dad - or at least social assistance, which Suleman will very likely be applying for very soon. Society can't wait to pay for these progressive results of unlimited "reproductive choice").

Who's the big loser here, aside from Suleman's mom and dad? Oh yeah - it's those eight cute "bundles of delight" that are currently spending several weeks in the hospital, having been born premature and fatherless - and of course, their six siblings at home.

Unbelievable.
.

New Blog by Donor-Conceived Adults

2009-01-13T13:30:00.003-05:00

A great new blog has just started. It is called Donor-Conceived Perspectives: Voices from the Offspring. Very worth visiting. For all those people who are considering using donor gametes to have children, please read the entries on that blog first, and listen to the voices of the actual children who resulted from donor insemination.

I've seen a lot of parents who used donor insemination say: "well, my child is just fine with it! My child is happy!" This new blog is a nice wake-up call. A lot of the parents who say their children are fine with being conceived using donor sperm have children who are toddlers or young kids. But what about when those same children become teenagers? And what about when they become adults? And what about when they have their own children? Nothing in the world can guarantee that your children will be happy/okay about being donor-conceived for their entire lives. Even when they were previously happy or not interested in their origins, something can trigger a deeper reflection for them and cause them to start mourning their biological father (see the entry by Damien Adams).

Another cry of pain

2008-11-20T15:49:00.003-05:00

Jo Rose, a 36-year-old donor-conceived woman, writes of her pain of not knowing who her biological father is. She asks a very good question:

It's not that I don't feel for people who have fertility issues. If people genuinely want to have a child and can't, that is tragic. But on the other hand, should you have a right to access somebody else's reproductive capacity without even knowing them, and with no thought for the identity of the human being who is produced?

She also points out the hypocritical double standard of donor conception:

One of the most upsetting things for me about the way I was brought into the world is the blatant double standard involved. My mother's need to have a genetic link to her child was valued, while my need to know, love and understand the father with whom I have a genetic link was not.

Thanks for speaking up, Jo Rose.

Baby News

2008-10-30T14:25:00.003-05:00

Well, I am happy to report that the reason why I have not been blogging much lately is because my surgery this summer has been successful. My husband and I are now expecting! It was a happy surprise for both of us, as we were not given a high probability of success. But here we are, over the moon. So I guess that makes us no longer infertile...but still very concerned about what is happening in the infertility industry.

Some more excellent news - on October 24, Olivia Pratten, a donor-conceived Canadian journalist, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of all donor conceived children of that province. She argues that donor anonymity violates these children's fundamental rights, and that they are wrongly treated differently than adopted children, which amounts to discrimination. Go Olivia! This historic lawsuit has already grabbed national headlines, and people are starting to debate the issue once again. Change may finally be coming to Canada!

They're girls? Oh, then we don't want them...

2008-08-11T10:49:00.003-05:00

A while ago, a news story came out about a British couple of Indian heritage who had just had twin girls. The 72-year old man and the 59-year old woman went through all the trouble of IVF to have babies - but apparently, it was all to have male babies. It turns out the doctors made a booboo, and the babies were girls! So the couple dropped them like hot potatoes right there in the hospital (the exact words in the article: they were not going to "accept" the babies, as if they were just products on offer), and the husband even had the nerve to inquire as to how soon his wife would be ready to go through IVF again to try for boys. (Read the story here).

Now, some may brush this incident off as a mere reflection of ignorant traditional culture that devalues girls. Partly true, but there is more to it. It is also undeniable that the whole process of IVF merely reinforces this kind of mentality, where newborn babies are treated like damaged merchandise based on their characteristics. This is why similar "wrongful birth" incidents are starting to pop up all over the place. In Australia recently, there have been at least two that I recently wrote about, where the parents are upset with the IVF doctors for "messing up" their order and are suing for compensation. Who cares if the characteristic is the gender, or genetic predispositions, or physical characteristics? The point is, IVF has sounded the death knell of unconditional parenal love, an incredibly important foundation for healthy child development.

DI children are speaking - are infertile people listening?

2008-03-12T20:37:00.004-05:00

DI-conceived Mywfany Walker recently said it very well in an interview for The Australian. She says of the DI-child which does not know its genetic father: "The child does not really know who they are". She also says of her genetic father (whom she eventually found), whose name is Michael:

"I know lots of facts about Michael, but I can't really 'know' him until I have a relationship with him."

Even though eventually she did find her father and now has a relationship with him, she says: "But there was a massive amount of loss there for me," she says. "There were 20 years I could never reclaim, coupled with the realisation that I could never have the genetic relationship with my own dad."

Here is what she says about gamete donation in general:

"Basically my problem is with the ethics of the practice. It doesn't protect the rights of the child. Once people understand the issues they probably wouldn't choose to conceive via donor. And also once the Government is aware of the issues I think they will inevitably either legislate against it or strictly govern its practice, that is, treat it as an adoption....It should be a question of whether it's in the interests of the child," she says. "You can't negate that, you really can't."

We deserve to be conceived in love

2008-03-07T10:14:00.006-05:00

A wonderful new blog has caught my attention (thanks to a comment here by its owner). Lindsay, a donor-conceived young woman has started a blog called "Confessions of a cryokid," and it is an incredibly worthwhile read. She is open and frank, and goes into detail. For all those infertile adults (and other adults) who are considering using donor gametes in their quest to have a child, this blog shoud be compulsory reading.

Lindsay begins the blog, appropriately, with her own personal story. I was deeply touched by her description of her own conception:

"On May 24th, 1984 in a small town in Northeast Ohio I was conceived. There was no candlelit dinner or even conversation between my parents that day. In fact, they had never even met. My father was probably sitting through a college lecture in Georgia and had no idea that 1,000 miles away his own biological daughter was being conceived in a doctor’s office."

What a wistfully sad description of the most sacred moment in a person's life, their own beginning. It is obvious even from these three first sentences that this lovely young woman feels a regret that her own, biological parents never loved each other, and never even knew each other. Rather than a loving and special act by her parents, her conception was a mere technical procedure performed in the cold, sterile environment of a doctor's office. There is also an obvious sadness that her own biological father did not even register the fact that his own child was coming into being.

The infertility industry may say what it will, but the children speak for themselves. It is clear to me that the human heart longs to be conceived in a special way that, above all, involves love between the biological parents. This is not the first time I have read such descriptions from DI-conceived people. I remember reading something similar from Katrina Clark and from Narelle in Australia. Conception does not necessarily require intentionality by the parents, but where love is missing, where the parents do not even know each other, one feels that the "specialness" of their beginning had been somehow violated. We long to be conceived from love!

The infertility industry tries to twist this fact around. They say, "My child was indeed conceived from love, because I loved this child - even before it was conceived!" Of course, they are fighting straw tigers with this argument. The child is not asking that it be loved before it was even conceived. This does not even make sense - after all, how could the parents really love *that* child, before it was even conceived, before they knew who it would be? More truthfully, they loved the idea of having a child, any child, whoever would come into being through their efforts. The fact is, we desire to be conceived from love between our parents, not love "for us" before we are conceived.

Responses VI: 12-13

2008-02-21T10:10:00.006-05:00

(12) "Children being put up for adoption are most times very much wanted by their biological parents! Adoption plans are made not because firstparents don't "want" the child but because they feel they cannot give the best care."

This refers to my saying that I would not adopt a child whose biological parents did want to raise that child - in other words, I would not want to take a child from parents who are willing to raise it!

If parents are giving up their child, whom they love and want to raise, only because they "feel they cannot give the best care," then we need to look at why they feel that way. Is it because they don't have the money? Because they don't know how to parent? Because they are too focused on their own lives?

Lots of people feel overwhelmed by the needs of a baby. That's not enough reason to give a baby away. There are programs to help parents to feel less overwhelmed - and there should be more of such programs. There are programs to help people with low incomes to be able to raise their children - and there should be more of those programs.

Our society should not take children away from their parents marely because the parents are scared of the new responsibility ahead of them. If the fears can be resolved with some concrete assistance, then we should offer the assistance, not take the child away. We should do all we can to help parents raise their own children, because adoption remains in my mind a true second and less perfect solution.

There might be a lot less babies up for adoption if we help biological parents in these ways - and in my opinion that is a good thing. Obviously not good for the infertile couples who want to adopt, but again, this is not about them - this is about the children, and what is best for those.

(13) "You presume that ART (repro tech) children are hurt by definition. I don't agree with that view. They exist, whereas they wouldn't have otherwise....I'm sure you could find a Jack or Jill out there who IS happy, though conceived through donor sperm...Happiness or unhappiness is not predetermined by the manner of conception alone. "

True, I'm sure lots of DI children are fairly "happy." After all, they are usually loved, "wanted," and given everything they could ever want (except their own biological families). Nonetheless, I do belive that underneath their happiness there is often a deep sadness...a loneliness and a longing to know something they may never be able to know - who they really are. Moreover, a "snapshot" of their happiness at any one point in their lives does not tell the whole story, since the gravity and reality of it "hits" people at different times in their lives, and the same DI-conceived people who are laughing today might be dealing with many DI-related issues tomorrow.

More than anything else, though, the happiness that they may experience witnesses to the indestructability of the human spirit and character. Human beings have an incredible ability to bounce back after being beaten down and damaged, don't they? For example, people who survived concentration camps sometimes went on to do great things in their lives - though some also spent the rest of their lives in the shadows, unable to get past the trauma.

Ultimately, even if some children/adults are seemingly unaffected by having been born of repro technologies, this does not speak to the ethics of those technologies. We make the best of whatever situation we are given. Children play in the streets even in war-torn countries, and life goes on even in the midst of tragedy. However, that does not mean this is not a tragedy, that it is an injustice, that it is a suffering and a trauma.

Responses V: 10-11

2008-02-20T11:45:00.001-05:00

(10) "...since no one elected you 'God', your truth is not THE truth....I am choosing to follow my own truth and am creating my family in a way that my husband and I feel is right for us."

You: purely subjective viewpoint - everyone has his/her "own" truth - in other words, there is no "truth", since the ethical reality of everything depends on perspective

Me: objective viewpoint - there is one truth, and we can't twist reality based on our own desires

This is a philosophical debate that could go on for a long time. Is there such a thing as objectively applicable morality, or is ethical truth purely subjective? Is it always wrong to do certain things, or does the morality of an act truly depend on whom you ask?

Our culture has lately leaned towards the latter rather than the former. Many people now believe that morality is subjective, and that "you have your truth and I have my truth," and all we really need to do is be "tolerant" of each other and not step on each other's toes.

If you beat your wife in your own home, and if that is not unethical in your culture, then all the more power to you, right?

Not quite.

The problem with the view that morality is subjective, and with the claim that "truth is in the eye of the beholder", is that this view is absolutely nonsensical and cannot stand up in real life. If truth is merely subjective, how could we have laws? The murderer, the thief, the drunk driver, the wife beater, the child molester, the racist, the bigot...these may all claim that in their world, their actions are not wrong. They are simply following "their truth," and it may even be backed up in some cases by their own cultures.

So should we just agree to disagree, turn a blind eye and be "tolerant" to their ways? Should we just say that hey, no one elected us God, so who are we to say that they are wrong to do what they are doing? What gives us the right to impose OUR morality on them, when they claim to see things differently?

The fact is that life in a civilized society demands the objective viewpoint. By having laws we recognize that ethical rules are objective and must be obeyed by everyone, regardless of their personal "truth." The opposite viewpoint, that truth is purely subjective, would bring us anarchy.

Moreover, imagine that kind of world - where everyone humbly "minds their own business" because they are not God, so what right do they have to meddle with the actions of others. Would you want to live in a world like that? In a world like that, no one would stand up for you if you were abused, violated, injured, threatened or attacked, because they would have no "right" to impose their own morality on the aggressor. In a world like that, you would live in utter confusion, because there would be no "truth," no "right," and no "wrong" - anything would go, and there would be no basis for ever saying "no" to anyone. In the end, the winner would be brute force, since rational argumentation would have run out of steam.

(11) "Tell me this, what do you think about donor frozen embryo transfers (FETs)? Those embryos are already made, for better or for worse. Without couples willing to undergo an IVF procedure, they have no other options but to be destroyed or given over to research. It's still "repro tech" but that procedure gives the only option for life in that situation."

In my opinion, Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) is a good thing as a way to save the lives of the embryos who have been frozen and who are waiting, in effect, to be able to live their lives.

That does not mean I support the creation of frozen embryos in the first place. However, once the deed is done, even though it was unethical, it creates a dilemma - lots of frozen little human beings who are not given the chance to live their lives. I've read that by some estimates, there are up to 500,000 of these beings in limbo in clinics in the U.S. What should be done with them?

One good solution, in my opinion, is to let them live!

For that reason I also strongly support embryo adoption. Those who adopt embryos are giving life to children who would otherwise probably lose their lives. Embryo adoption shares the characteristics of other adoption - it is an act of help towards a child in need - a child that already exists, a child whose problems the adoptive parents did not create but rather, they now want to help alleviate.

Responses IV: 8-9

2008-02-15T12:04:00.000-05:00

(8) "No one is trying to say that biological parents don't MATTER, just that biology is not ALL that matters and sometimes biological parents can not or choose not to parent their children."

True, sometimes biological parents simply CANNOT parent their children, and that's certainly always been recognized as a handicap for the children. Foster parenting and adoption has never been seen as a "first best" option for a child that is born into this world. If the biological parents are not abusive and if they have ability and means to raise their own children, then that has always been seen as the preferred alternative.

As far as biological parents CHOOSING not to parent their own children, that is a much newer phenomenon - and it is by no means decidedly ethical. Our society and law have traditionally believed that parents couldn't just disregard their parenting responsibilities towards their biological children, whether or not their children were created intentionally. Many people would prefer to just ignore the fact that they've created children, and to have no responsibilities towards these needy little creatures. And yet, our laws go after "deadbeat dads", and men can end up paying child support even when the pregnancy resulted from a one-night stand. Parents also end up paying child support after a divorce, even though many parents would find it more convenient to simply "choose not to" parent their children anymore once the marriage ends.

The law has always recognized that parental responsibility is not dependent on the parents and their wishes. It's always been about the children and their RIGHT to be parented and supported by those who created them.

However, this age-old law of parental responsibility is now colliding with the new development of gamete "donation", where men and women agree to give up their own biological children before these are ever created. These people are not giving up their own children because they have to, or because they are forced to, or because they are abusive parents. They are doing it simply because they claim this is their autonomous reproductive right. Apparently, "reproductive rights" aren't just about using contraception and having "wanted" children -- they also include the right to create an "unwanted" child in order to give (sell) it away to strangers! The biological parents even claim that just because they do not recognize these "unwanted" biological offspring as their own children, then they are not in fact their children! Now that's a boggling example of "mind over matter" - kind of like the ostrich sticking his head into the sand and thinking the world has disappeared.

Of course, the "unwanted" child is given absolutely no say as its real, able and perfectly good parents exercise their "reproductive choice" to give it away to one or two complete biological strangers. It is assumed, expected and even demanded that the child will accept this strange situation as equally good to being raised by its own biological parents. In fact, the child should rejoice at being with these strangers because they "want" the child - whereas its real, biological parent(s) never wanted the child at all.

Both in terms of ethics and in terms of rights, there is a universe of difference between parents who CANNOT and parents who CHOOSE NOT to parent their own children. While it has always been recognized that parents sometimes cannot do what they ought, they have never had a right to simply "choose not to" when they could. That's because the children have rights to their own parents, too.

(9) "You will never be affected by my choices so your "opinion" is not relevant in this matter."

How can you be sure I will never be affected by your choices? In a society where gamete donation is becoming increasingly common, my own life could very well be affected by your actions. Imagine that one day, my child (should we have any) marries a gamete-donation child. My grandchildren won't ever know half of their family tree! Yes, my family could be directly affected by your choices.

Responses III: 5 to 7

2008-02-14T11:10:00.003-05:00

Thanks to the anonymous comments yesterday. Normally I would answer them in the Comment section but since I am currently making a list of objections and responses in the main Blog, I am answering them here. I can only deal with a couple of arguments a day, so please be patient.

(5) "So I guess you think that I would have been better off with my violently abusive bio father rather than in a home that loved me?"

No. A child is definitely better off in a home where the child is loved than in a home with an abusive father - biological or non-biological. -- Incidentally, various studies have shown that children are much more likely to be abused by a non-biological father-figure than by a biological father. Yes, biological fathers do sometimes abuse their children, but it is also a fact that men are naturally much LESS inclined to abuse their OWN biological children.

This question is certainly important for adoption or foster parenting. Children are better off with adoptive or foster parents than with abusive biological parents.

However, when it comes to gamete donation, I fail to see the relevance of this question. When it comes to gamete donation, there is no question of the donor being abusive. In fact, the donors advertised by most sperm banks are exactly the type of men who are very UNlikely to abuse their children. They are often responsible, mature, professional, well-rounded, high achievers, educationally, athletically, socially and financially successful...you name it. Many of them have families of their own and their children are just fine.

So in gamete donation, there is no concern of "rescuing" the child from a bad, abusive father. It would be nice if gamete donation were motivated by something so altruistic, but in reality the child would probably have been quite happy with its gamete donor parent. In fact, it might be have been better off than with its "adoptive" replacement parent, who can often be rather less of a "star".

(6) "As far as children's rights go there are SO more pressing issues to deal with like the many many abused and neglected kids in bio families. I don't get why repro tech is such a focus for you if what you care most about are children's rights. I don't really "get" why you are so focused on reprotech as being such an issue in the midst of today's societal breakdown...You have every right to your opinions, I just fail to see the point of your blog if children's rights are you main cause. ....Isn't divorce a bigger problem than sperm donation??"

Yes, on the overall scale of things, more children are affected by divorce than sperm donation, and there is definitely a societal breakdown in many important areas that affect children and the family. But people with limited time have to "choose their battles." This is my battle.

(7) "Repro tech is not the problem, lack of basic human kindness, responsibilty, etc., is the much bigger problem."

The use of reproductive technologies today actually demonstrates and is fuelled by the "much bigger problem" that you mention: the lack of basic human kindness and responsibility. I would also add that the use of reproductive technologies today also shows a deep selfishness, self-centeredness and lack of empathy on the part of many parents, attitudes that continue to be strongly fostered by our materialistic and individualist culture.

Responses II

2008-02-13T12:24:00.002-05:00

My responses to arguments continue:

(3) "I don't think you have the right to tell others that "repro tech" is wrong for anyone who has chosen that path."

False. That right is called free speech. It would be a sad state of affairs indeed if we could not express our opinion on ethics simply because someone might be "offended," which really means that their feelings could be hurt.

Notice, this argument doesn't even try to address whether or not I could be right. Clearly, rationality, logic, ethics and the truth do not matter here. It's all based on protecting the emotions of those who use repro tech. I should not have the right to argue, to even bring up the possibility that someone who uses repro tech could be doing something unethical - not because that is the truth, but because they could be offended and hurt by my words.

Well, if you're going to do unethical things then you should not be surprised if someone calls you on it. There IS a right to free speech. But there is NO "right" to have your feelings protected and to have your critics silenced when you do something that is unethical.

(4) "IVF has bio parents raising bio children and in the case of donor gametes many couples are chosing donors who are willing to have contact, similar to open adoption."

Yes, families who used donor gametes also sometimes choose to have contact with their donors. And indeed, this points out the similarities between donor-conception and adoption. Those who use donor gametes are, in effect, CREATING a child that they will then ADOPT, because the child is NOT naturally, biologically and fully theirs.

It is a good development that donor gamete families choose contact with their donors. But WHY did they choose it?

These developments, the "open" gamete donation and the "open" adoption, are both fairly recent. For many decades, the collective wisdom was that all links to biological parents should be cut forever. Studies have shown that most donor-gamete children were never even told that they were conceived using a third person's gametes! So the social/ intended parents were not exactly jumping at the chance to have contact with the donor and to have the donor become a part of their lives. The social/intended parents did NOT cause this revolution in "openness." They would have been fine with silence, with just forgetting the whole thing ever happened because these are "their" children now.

But over time, the parents realized that their children NEEDED this contact. The children of earlier generations grew up and still felt lost, and needed to search for their missing "halves." They want to have contact with the very biological parents, and families, that were taken away from them by their social/intended parents under the "enlightened" theory that love is all that matters. These children, who always had it drummed into their heads that biology doesn't matter, started logging onto the Donor Sibling Registry and searching for each other and for their biological parents.

Why did these "very, very LOVED" children still long to know those darned DNA donors, their biological parents? Why did their yearning cause this shift towards "open" gamete donation? Because the children have shown us that no matter how much they are "loved," their BIOLOGICAL PARENTS MATTER!!!

The very development of "open" gamete donation should show anyone who is considering the use of donor gametes just how important biological parents really are.

Some responses to reader arguments

2008-02-12T09:18:00.000-05:00

Some of my recent posts have resulted in a flurry of arguments from those in favor of repro technologies. The permutations of these arguments are quite interesting. I am in favor of rational argument and debate on the facts, not based on emotion - and as such, I wish to deal with each of these arguments seriously. Because there are lots of these arguments, I will answer them in a few subsequent blog entries as well. Today I will start with two of these arguments.

(1) "Save a life? Spare a life? Create a life? What's the difference?"

The difference is in the INTENTION of those who are saving or creating the life. Intention matters. Where morality and ethics are concerned, intention is king. Intention is often what makes the difference between guilt and innocence - before the law, and in our own conscience too. Most of our criminal law is built around intention. For instance, if you really did not intend to kill someone and it happened accidentally, you get off with manslaughter. If you premeditated it, you get slapped with the 1st degree.

When we adopt a child that we did not help to create, we are helping the child. Our intention was not to rip that child away from its biological parents. Our intention is to help a needy little person who is already abandoned by its own biological parents and who needs to be adopted. This is why in some ways adoption is an act of charity, even though the adoptive parents also want a child of their own.

On the other hand, when we intentionally create a child who will not know or be raised by its own biological parent(s), we are in effect creating challenges for that child. We are making that child's life more difficult from the outset. We are no longer fully "innocent" in relation to that child's difficult situation. We helped to create that situation. Our action in raising that child can no longer be viewed in any way as an act of charity. Rather, it is clearly an act of our own selfishness: we wanted a child for ourselves, regardless of the negative consequences for the child. We can say to ourselves, "well, who doesn't have difficulties in life?" That is true, but it is also true that WE have created this important difficulty for the child - a difficulty that the child may struggle with for a lifetime, and that will also affect the child's own children and grandchildren.

(2) "I see no difference between IVF and adoption, all though I could make a successful argument that IVF is more biblical. It does say to go forth and multiply."

Quite funny. Since the Bible says "go forth and multiply," then I guess that any way of "multiplying" is biblical! That would justify rape, incest, sexual slavery, anything. Any way of getting a woman pregnant is, I guess, "going forth and multiplying," so it is biblical! This argument is transparently simplistic and false - but I am dealing with it here anyway, just because I am trying to address them all.

More arguments and responses to follow in the next blog entry.

Seeking Surrogates in India

2008-02-11T15:45:00.000-05:00

Growing and giving away children is becoming a "respectable" business in some places, it seems. Could this perhaps be called "exploitation," or is it merely another legitimate free-enterprise way of making money and escaping poverty? Are Western couples preying on poor Indian women, or are they giving them a way out of their misery? As with many questions, it all depends who you ask.

Sarah J. Flashing, MA, says it very well in her new essay at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity:

"The problem with commercial surrogacy...is that at its very foundation it rejects human dignity, the inherent aspect of what it means to be human, having been made in the image of God. ...Her dignity is violated by exploiting her financial vulnerabilities. Her dignity is violated by viewing her womb as a piece of factory equipment that can be utilized over and over again for the production of a product, or fixed when it breaks down from continued use. Her body is not a piece of property that can be monopolized for nine months by a child she may grow to love but cannot be held. She is a human being created in the image of God, and to treat her as such would mean to be generous to her without consideration of her procreative capacity, not to use this capacity as a means for her survival."

"We the infertile people"

2008-02-07T10:13:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I received a comment on this blog, where a woman demanded that I cease speaking out against reproductive technologies because, until I have walked a mile in her (infertile) shoes, I can't possibly imagine the hell of infertility, and therefore I can't appreciate how any and all means of getting out of that hell - including repro tech - are clearly acceptable.

She assumed that if I am speaking out against repro tech, then my knowledge of infertility and repro tech must be purely academic. And if my knowledge is purely academic, then I have no right to express my opinion, which is so offensive to those who have actually walked the "road of hot coals".

I thought about this comment for some time. In the past, I have not made personal comments on this blog about myself, and part of me did not want to get into that. I disagree with the view that a person is not entitled to speak about something just because he or she has not experienced it himself. That kind of mindset would lock us in narrow and separate worlds.

Nonetheless, I finally decided to clarify a bit about my own situation, because it just so happens that I do know for myself the pain of infertility. My husband and I have been trying to have children for many months now. We have watched other couples we know - friends, family, coworkers - have babies, and more babies, and more babies...while we are still coming home to our two pets.

No, it is not easy. In fact, it can be very difficult, and yes, I have cried a lot.

In our own case, I still have hope. We are now being seen by a fertility specialist, and we are undergoing tests to find out what the problem is (or are - if they can be found). It is stressful, embarassing, awful...every time I go into that clinic I completely tense up and hate every minute of it, and yet it is our hope.

However, my views on repro tech remain the same. If in vitro or other repro technologies turn out to be our only hope, then we won't do it. We will try to adopt. That can, of course, be long and difficult and expensive too. Well, we may try to be foster parents too, I am open to that.

And whatever else happens...we trust in God and what he has planned for us. I do believe that things happen for a reason, and that everything, even pain and suffering, can be made to work for the good. My husband has been incredibly supportive through it all, he is truly a solid and great man.

It is certain that infertility is a great suffering. Sometimes I feel like a social outcast because I struggle with having children. Sometimes I feel like a leper...and I wonder, if it is my fault, am I ruining my husband's life, do I even deserve to be with him? What will my mother in law, who is eager for more grandchildren, think of me if she finds out that it is me? I just want to hole up and hide.

On the other hand, it is good to put things into perspective. I am currently reading a book about Africa by a Polish journalist who lived there for 40 years. He describes the terrible poverty, the wars, the famine, the dire living conditions. Those still exist today. People struggle with so many things in the world. In the West, people's suffering is mostly hidden within big houses, behind smiling faces, and we do not see it. Everyone seems happy, and we feel like the only ones who aren't. But the fact is, suffering is a fact of life.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with suffering is to take a step back and to realize that our suffering is NOT worse than a lot of other people's. People all over the world are terminally ill, they are dying, they are divorcing, they are losing their loved ones, they are losing their homes, their countries, they are hungry, they are persecuted, they are in war-torn countries fearing for their lives...in fact, in comparison with most of the world, WE are the lucky ones, in many other ways.

I still believe that the answer to the pain of infertility is NOT to transfer the suffering onto the children who are created - that is NOT our right, even as "infertile people".

Bone marrow can become sperm

2008-02-06T08:52:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I wrote about how the British government wants to take out the reference, in their laws, to children needing a father. My question was, are men passé?

Well, it turns out that again in Britain, scientists have discovered how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm cells!

This is no longer mere science fiction. Men and women appear to be losing any need for each other. We have already lost a need for each other in almost every way in normal life, and now, we are losing a need for each other in the most elemental aspect of all, human reproduction.

I view this is a very sad development indeed. Not just for the sake of men, but especially for the sake of the children who will not have fathers - due to parenting by lesbian couples or single women, or, perhaps one day, due to the fact that even their own genes come only from two women.

Mommy 1, Mommy 2 and Daddy

2008-02-05T12:59:00.001-05:00

A team of doctors have created a human embryo with three biological parents. They planted the nucleus of an embryo (formed in the usual way with egg and sperm) into another egg whose nucleus had been removed. The embryo began to grow as normal.

This of course leads to the disturbing question: do we want to create people with three genetic parents? What are we doing to our children? And does anyone even care about the impact on children, since the overriding concern in all these technologies seems to focus on the desires and "needs" of the adults?

A rather disquieting tangent along these lines is the door that such an experiment opens to polygamy. If children have three "natural" parents, then why can't these parents all get married and live in the home, and share in the raising of their child? Any other arrangement is arguably unfair to the child, who is forced to choose between parents and see less of one than the two others.

It is also interesting that for this experiment, the scientists used the "defective" embryos left over from IVF. And with this little "transplant," the embryos got a second wind and started developing as normal. Thus, there may now be a way to "save" some of those embryos that were previously written off as too damaged to use in IVF.

Britain - blazing the way to the new dark ages

2008-02-04T09:53:00.000-05:00

How lovely, the National Health Service in the U.K. is debating whether to use taxpayer money to cover the cost of renting surrogate wombs. Couples or individuals - whether heterosexual or homosexual (or, presumably, "other") - would be able to get their babies from rent-a-wombs free of charge, with taxpayers footing the bill.

I am constantly amazed at the repro tech stuff that is coming out of the U.K. these days. It's a train out of control. Can it get any more crazy, any more appalling, any more disturbed and disturbing?

WIth the government picking up the tab, the surrogate business is liable to increase to a veritable "cottage industry". Some women could even begin to specialize in being live baby incubators. It could become a whole new career field, perhaps even supported by courses in local community colleges.

Perhaps women like Jill Hawkins are visionaries and pioneers of the future after all. The question is, what kind of future are they harbingering? Jill Hawkins, on antidepressants as she plans the surrender of her eighth baby...the pioneer of a future:

where children belong to no one by nature and anyone by law;
where children have no right to their biological parents, siblings, relatives, families or cultures;
where adults have the right to give life or inflict death and to "assign" babies to whomever they choose;
where adults commission the manufacturing of their children based on preferences and specifications, and can seek damages where these specifications are not followed or the child is an "inferior" product;
where even adults are used and exploited for their sperm, eggs, and wombs, especially adults that are young and not fully informed or cognizant of the consequances, financially or emotionally needy, or who live in developing countries;
where being an adult means having might - and might makes right, and contains all rights - and where being a child, especially unborn - means having no rights at all...

A grand old future. Britain is blazing the way of progress and enlightenment, that much is sure.

Baby manufacturing defect II

2008-02-02T08:38:00.000-05:00

Last September, the media reported that a lesbian couple is suing their doctor for transferring two embryos rather than one. They want $400k for their damages in having to raise two girls rather than just one.

The doc is defending himself by saying that although the transfer of two embryos was a bona fide mistake, the rate of "embryo splitting" is also high in IVF and the embryo could have split on its own even if only one was transferred; hence, the doc alleges that he owed the mothers no duty of producing only one child.

It's not clear who will win that one. In the immediate dispute I would lean towards the plaintiffs. Yes, the doc owed them no duty of final outcome - however, he did have the responsibility of carrying out his end of the bargain without error. He did err, and raised their chances of a twin outcome from a certain lower percentage to a higher percentage.

Notice the lesbians did, according to the story, briefly consider giving one of the girls up for adoption. But they chose not to - and yet, they still want damages. How could they still believe they are entitled to receive funding for raising and educating the second girl, if they were not forced to keep her?

They might claim that they simply could not bear to part with their own genetic child. The irony of their situation is that since they are lesbians, the girls are evidently the product of a sperm donor. As such, the lesbians can't possibly believe that biological parents matter so much to a child - or even to the parents of the child. After all, they already intentionally separated the girls from at least one of their biological parents.

Since they had the option of placing one of the girls up for adoption, the court should point out that it is simply unreasonable for them to receive funding for raising and educating the second girl.

The broader point, however, is that we are witnessing the birth of a society where parents sue because their children didn't come out as ordered. In other words, parents are now the disgruntled customers, and their children are the products.

Rather than being happy with whatever they get, parents are now demanding that their children conform to certain specifications. Back in the days of natural reproduction, parents would never have dreamed of suing each other (or God) because they got twins instead of a single baby. Each baby was a gift, even if it was a challenge.

Now, parents demand specific numbers of a specific kind of child, and they expect to have their cake and eat it too: "Two boys without the deafness gene, one girl without the cancer gene, and no down's syndrome or other disabilities, please."

If anything goes wrong, parents don't just accept it anymore as the gift of a nature that knows better than our own human limitations. They rage against the clinic for wasting their time and hurting their emotions, and leaving them with a deficient product that requires their time and money - certainly a cause for "damages."

It is a shame that while the parents may believe they have sustained "damages" due to the errors of the clinic, their attitude will likely lead to even deeper "damages" to their own children, who will inevitably perceive that they are a burden rather than a blessing to their own parents, and who will perceive that rather than being treated as beautiful and invaluable no matter what their attributes, their parents value and love them only conditionally.

Parents sue over baby manufacturing defect

2008-02-01T08:34:00.000-05:00

Imagine if one day, your parents told you that if they had known that you'd be born with a certain defect that you have, then they would rather have never conceived you at all. They would have adopted or just not had children.

And it's not because your defect has made you a serial killer or because you are a psychopath, dangerous or evil to society or to themselves. It's only because they didn't want to be burdened with the medical expenses that your defect brings, and possibly also because they think your life may become too full of suffering (for you - or for them?) and you may die young - and, it seems, they would only have wanted a child that lives to old age.

And how would you feel, additionally, if the same defect for which they would have rejected you and ended your life in a Petri dish, is the same defect that your mother actually has, and which she has lived with for many years even as she married and had children (like you)?

This is what an Australian couple is alleging, in a lawsuit where they are suing their IVF clinic for implanting them with the wrong embryo. The embryo happened to have the cancer gene that the parents commissioned to be screened out. The clinic had created 8 embryos. 6 were killed on the spot, while two were implanted. Only one made it through to birth. But oops - three months after the baby's birth, the parents found out that their son had the cancer gene after all!

So of course, like proper dissatisfied shoppers, they stormed Customer Service and sued. They want money for emotional trauma and they want money for the medical expenses of raising their new son, whom they allege they would never have had if the doctors hadn't assured them that he would be free of the cancer gene.

Away with the old; in with the new. In the days of yore, parents used to love and be thankful for any child that was born to them. They did not have demands of a clean bill of health or anything else for that child. A child was God's gift, a free and great miracle. Parents believed that each child had its own value, and that if their child had a disability then it was still equally valuable and had something to teach them about love.

Today, some parents are no longer content with receiving the flawed and damaged gifts of nature. Parents now pre-select their children in the lab dish. They will no longer accept just any child; they want the most perfect child that they can get. When their "order" gets messed up and is filled incorrectly, and another child is born as a result, they have "emotional trauma". The child has created great and grievous "damages"solely by being born less perfect than its parents demanded. Parents are enraged at being "stuck" with an inferior product that they did not order. They are appalled that now, they are supposed to pour their love and attention, their finances and their time, onto this inferior product that was never supposed to exist. What a travesty of justice! Someone certainly has to pay the price.

But regardless of how much the clinic pays, someone else will pay the most. That is the child itself. The boy, once he realizes how conditional the love of his parents is, will pay the most. The parents may think that the cancer gene will ruin their child's life. In fact, it is their own inability to unconditionally love their child and rejoice at his birth that could very well damage him psychologically beyond anything else.

Are fathers passé?

2008-01-31T09:05:00.000-05:00

Perhaps that is not the real question. The real question, from the perspective of enlightened social engineering in the progressive UK, is "should" fathers be passé? To which question the unequivocal politically-correct answer du jour is certainly "of course!"

Now that lesbians and single women only need some sperm in order to have their very own babies, raised without a demanding and oppressive male biological father around, and social science research is supposedly starting to confirm the unlikely proposition that such children are not just AS well off but in fact even BETTER off in some ways than children whose biological father lives in the home (apparently because two lesbians are more caring and loving than a mom and dad), well then - what else are men, and what else should they be, but prospective sperm donors?

This is the real victory of feminism. Perhaps one day we will be able to clone sperm out of women's cells - a story like that appeared quite seriously in the media last year. If that happens then we won't need men at all in the end, and we could essentially breed them out of the human race and into extinction. Hurray for peace in the world!

The funny thing is that even as Britain struggles under the clamoring of the reproductive rights lobby to take away the legal recognition of the importance of fatherhood, in America the government is trying hard to do the opposite: to make deadbeat dads take some responsibility for their children, to stick around rather than abandon women to be single moms, to make an appearence in the lives of their children. But why should they? According to the UK's reproductive lobby, the fathers have done their job - they donated the sperm and created the baby. The woman chose to keep it rather than having an abortion. And social science says that fathers are not needed after all.

So maybe we should all act like a pack of wild animals once again, and have the fathers disappear after the copulation is done, for everyone's benefit. That is, unless the woman wants to keep one around, not for the child but for herself. The rumor has it that men are good at certain domestic chores and other heavier work...but certainly nothing that women couldn't do themselves and just as well, or even better.

"My babies are for sale"

2008-01-30T20:00:00.000-05:00

According to this article in the Times online, Jill Hawkins is at it again, planning yet another "surrogate" pregnancy. Britain's most prolific child producer has already given (or rather, sold) 7 of her own children for about 12,000 UK pounds each. Now she is planning to get impregnated yet again, for another 12,000 pounds, as well as for a temporary feeling of being loved, valued and cared for (by the drooling parents-to-be) and another temporary "fix" of having meaning in life.

As a traditional surrogate, Jill is not impregnated with embryos created with the sperm and eggs of another couple. Rather, she receives the sperm of the man who is commissioning the child, and the sperm then fertilizes her own egg. The children she bears are truly and fully her own, and she is their biological mother.

But Jill claims, once again, not to have any attachment to the children that are her own. All she really craves is the pregnancy itself, she says.

Um, yeah. I guess that must be why she has attempted suicide in the past. I guess that's why she has, in the past, been diagnosed with heavy depression and why she is still dependent on antidepressants.

Among the comments to the article, Michael Moore of Slough, UK makes a very good point - it is obvious that Jill Hawkins is "actually using 'serial pregnancy' to overcome her own ongoing trauma."

Should this be legal? No way. I do feel bad for infertile couples, I really do - BUT their own pain, misery and desire for children does not give them the right to exploit people like Jill Hawkins, who are ready to sell their own babies for some love that they've never gotten in life (and for a nice lump sum of cash too, of course).

Once again I'd like to point out that we cannot count on self-regulation by women like Jill Hawkins, by the infertile couples or even by the fertility clinics, brokers and agents who spring up like mushrooms after rain in order to reap the middlemen bonuses. There is only one way to prevent these reproductive abuses that leave children as the greatest victims, and that is by government regulation and its enforcement.

Product mix-up

2007-09-04T08:57:00.001-05:00

What a mess. White babies born to a white-black married couple that was supposed to have used the husband's sperm. The parents sue for emotional distress: yes, evidently. They have now separated under the stress; a divorce is probably on the horizon if the wife decides to keep these third party babies.

Similarly, IVF clinic boo-boos apparently happen quite often, and one nonprofit has decided to start keeping tabs. I smell lots of lawsuits in the air. The product ordered was not delivered; sub-par baby is an "emotional distress.

The fatal attraction of IVF

2007-08-29T07:32:00.001-05:00

An Irish woman has died from IVF treatment. Not the first, and surely not the last. Attention egg donors - you aren't just giving your child away. You are potentially dying to give your child away.

Genetic links are only important for the parents, right?

2007-08-28T07:34:00.000-05:00

In her article on transgenerational reproduction, the commentator, Ana Smajdor, points out something very interesting, ironic and important.

She discusses the recent case of the Montreal woman Melanie Boivin, who has frozen some of her eggs so that her 7-year-old infertile daughter Flavie would be able to use them someday. Smajdor points out that this kind of egg donation shows that the mother believes that the genetic link is important in having children. If Melanie Boivin had not thought that it was important to be genetically related to the child, then she wouldn't have frozen her eggs for her daughter to eventually use: "Because of course Flavie, like any other infertile person, could seek to use donated eggs if on reaching adulthood, she found herself longing to start a family."

The irony is that while Boivin believes that it's important for the child to be genetically related to the parent, the reality is that by using her mother's eggs, Flavie will be giving birth not to her own genetic daughter but to her half-sibling: in effect, Melanie Boivin will have a child with Flavie's future husband.

What a screwed up scenario. However, it's not as new as you may think. This has already happened! In her book Everything Conceivable, Liza Mundy mentions a case where the father of an infertile man donated his sperm for the son to use. The son has thus had a baby which is, in reality, his half-sibling.

More on birth certificates in the UK

2007-08-24T10:55:00.000-05:00

Natasha Pearlman, "I feel so betrayed because I don't know who my father is" (Daily Mail, August 2, 2007) - An excellent article about Tom Ellis and how he has reacted to finding out about his real origin. And to think that there is opposition in Britain to placing the "donor-conceived" stamp on children's birth certificates:

"Bizarre", responded outspoken MP Evan Harris. "There is no proper evidence that children or adults suffer from not knowing who their 'real fathers' are, whether from IVF or from infidelity," he said. He was backed up by the chief ethicist for the British Medical Association, Dr Vivienne Nathanson. The committee's view of parenthood is decades out of date, she wrote. Parents ought to be honest with their children, but they should be coaxed into doing so, not forced. Placing "donor conceived" on birth certificates is "a highly genetic-determinist view of life".

No proper evidence, really? Does Tom Ellis and others like him need to scream harder? Something tells me that no hearing aid could ever help these people: they just don't WANT to get it.

Indeed, Vivienne Nathanson's whole argument (read it here) is disturbing. She argues not only that there is no evidence that children are harmed, and that the whole arugment of harm is "illusory" but that the real harm here is to the parents, who would be forced to tell - and so their parenting is being undermined. No longer can parents choose the timing of telling their child - now they must tell whenever their child sees their birth certificate (if not sooner).

And then, of course, the terrible threat - if UK legislation mandates disclosure, then parents will go abroad and have their children elsewhere! Our country will be populated by aliens! To which I say, too bad, too bad.

And too bad for the parents who can no longer choose to lie forever. Nathanson's argument about timing would have more force if it didn't run smack against the statistic that up to 90% of parents choose NEVER to tell their children that they are donor-conceived. It's not about WHEN here, it's about telling AT ALL. That's really the right that Parliament wants to protect. Children have a right to know, and their parents often have too many "good" reasons never to tell them.

Nathanson is right that the parents' freedom of parenting is being clipped here. But where adult freedoms run up against the rights of children, Western law has long stood solidly on the side of the weaker party - the best interests of the children take precedence, thank you very much. Parents have a few years to figure out how and when to tell, while the child doesn't even yet know what a birth certificate is, can't read it or hasn't asked to see it. You'd think that would be enough time for the parents to get their act together. By the time a child knows what a birth certificate is, you'd think the child would also have the right to know who its biological parents are.

UK - committee suggests that birth certificates record donor conception

2007-08-24T10:29:00.000-05:00

This is real progress. In the UK, a parliamentary committee has recommended that birth certificates let children know that they were donor conceived. That's wonderful news, especially since about 90% of donor-conceived children still don't even know it. Their so-called parents, who are really adoptive parents, biological strangers who ordered and bought these children from their real parents - don't even have to tell the resulting children of their true origins. As if it didn't matter. As if it shouldn't matter.

Some people have criticized this recommendation as "state intrusion on the sensitive and personal parental choice as to if an when to tell their child". Oooooh, so sorry. I forgot that it's always all about the parents. Naturally, the children have NO rights in this regard! They don't have the right to know who their parents are or where they come from! For all they care and for all it matters, they might have come from Crypton like Superman, and they shouldn't ask any questions. They can go on believing that they have Irish blood from their social father, who is actually not related to them. They can go on thinking that they face the risk of inheritable breast cancer from their mother's side, although she is in reality not related to them. It's all in their best interest, and love is all that matters.

The baby is so wanted that it must be really mine

2007-08-20T21:23:00.000-05:00

By chance I noticed that this blog recently had the honor of being discussed on another blog. The blog "Right v. Easy," which is written by a woman who is raising the biological son of her cousin (conceived via her cousin's egg donation), discusses on her website how this blog has been on her mind for quite some time.

To which I say, that's great. The intent of this blog is to get people thinking about a perspective that they may not have encountered much. The rights of children in assisted reproduction continue to be far too marginalized in the field of reproductive technologies. The entire industry is focused on the desires of the customers (the intended parents) rather than on the rights or needs of the merchandise (the children, who are often not yet conceived when the transactions take place).

Anna from "Right v. Easy" is of course disturbed by the things she has read here. The typical arguments again rear their head:

1. The accusation of hate - this website is full of "vitriol".

In other words, I exhibit animus against people who use these technologies. How can I prove that I don't "hate" just because I disagree? Anyone is free to come to whatever conclusion they want about what I think. All I can say is, I of course have great sympathy for those who deal with infertility, or with whatever compels them to consider assisted reproduction. These are never easy situations. Most commonly they are extremely difficult life choices that involve deep emotions of grief and loss, among others. For many people, reproductive technologies offer the only hope of ever having a biological child - that's a huge thing to give up.

As much compassion as I feel for those who suffer with these difficult life choices however, I still can't blindly condone any and all actions they hereby decide to take in order to assuage their own grief and to heal their wounds. Pain doesn't make all things right. Just because you hurt, it doesn't give you the free pass to trample over other people to heal yourself. Some things are wrong and they stay wrong, regardless of why they are done or who does them.

Just because I can't have children, that doesn't give me the right to other people's children. I can't just go to my neighbour, who has 7 kids, and take one of hers. And what if she were to offer me one of her kids just because I don't have one? Should I take it? No, I can't do that. The kid, standing there staring at me with it's big blue eyes, has a right to its own mother, and she can't just pack up the kid's little suitcase and ship it off next door because she feels bad for me, the neighbour who has no kids. The fact is, even the mother doesn't have the right to give her kids to other people like that - because they are people too, not things, so they have rights of their own.

And yet, that's exactly what is happening today. Kind people who feel compassionate for the childless are trying to make them feel better by giving them their own children - before they are even born. The child still stares up at me with its big blue eyes, but this time, it has no chance to have its real mom, because she was out of the picture before it was ever born.

2. The "Most Wanted and Loved Child" argument

The gold standard of the fertility industry. Everything is okay because it was done "in the name of love". It's okay to make a biological orphan, as long as the baby is loved and wanted so, so, so, so, very much. Love and desire make up for AAAaaaaall the wrongs of the world.

If only this were so. But the donor-conceived children themselves (those ungrateful little grubs) say something different. Lots of them are saying that being loved and wanted was not enough. Having lots of fluffy toys and cake and things and things was not enough! These kids are aching to be loved and wanted by their biological parents, not by random, unrelated infertile people!

Having doubts about that? Look at adoptees. How many adoptees were loved and wanted? Probably just as many as donor-conceived children. Their infertile parents went through YEARS of adoption hassles and red tape to get these adoptive kids. Yes, they were wanted! Yes, they had their little scrapbooks and love and love and mountains of things! Their parents gave them everything, EVERYTHING. And yet, these kids still shut themselves in their large rooms, go on their brand new laptops and click on Facebook and send out plaintive little messages searching for their real biological parents. Why do they do it? Because biology matters, whether you believe it or not. Because being loved by random, unrelated strangers is NOT the same as being loved by people whose faces resemble yours, who have your genes and you have theirs, who understand you and who connect with you on a deep, instinctive, primeval level that we can't express in words.

No, love from just anyone is not all that matters. No, being wanted by just anyone is not all that matters. Other things matter too: like seeing your own face in your mother's face. Like knowing that you have your artistic talent from your father, and that you can develop it into something great because he did. Like being proud of your heritage and identifying with the heros in your family's past and present. Like having a feeling of belonging when you play with your own brothers and sisters, whose likenesses and differences reassure you that you are normal and yet unique.

Anyway, love and desire are feelings that are famously here today and gone tomorrow. How many people have fallen out of love? How many people have changed their mind about something that they really, really wanted at one time? Love and desire are not the most stable basis for a timeless relationship. The only sure thing is biology, which cannot be altered. Biology begets love in a way that desire itself cannot. Biology begets unconditional love that is based on immutable relationship - parents love their children, who contain parts of themselves - forever, no questions asked. It's instinctive, it's primeval, it's animalistic - but it's real, and it works, and it has worked for millennia. Whereas the love of strangers is never fully unconditional, because it is based on choice - and choice is based on desire, on a feeling that can go away. There is no underlying bedrock of immutability - indeed, even legal relationships can be changed.

3. The specific case of illness avoidance

Anna did not use egg donation due to infertility. She did it to save her future child from a terrible illness, and she paid a terrible cost for it - she gave up her own fertility, and chose not to have her own biological child. Her motivation was noble, and I sympathize with her difficult choices. She did indeed give up much, in order to spare her future child an awful existence.

And yet, I still believe that her actions went too far. She was free to choose not to have children. However, her concern for having a healthy child, and her decision to give up her own children, still did not entitle her to other people's children.

As the situation stands now, Anna paid a great price for her decision not to have an unhealthy child: she had no biological child of her own. However, she also made someone else share the cost of her decision. Her son has also paid a price: because he was chosen to be the healthy child, he has had to give up his own biological mother. So (biologically speaking) while Anna is childless, he is motherless.

Only time will tell what Anna's son thinks of this arrangement. It cannot be assumed, although he is wanted and loved by Anna, that he will be A-OK with being given up by his biological mother - and it is his right, as Anna will surely admit, to think whatever he wants, to seek out his biological mother in the future, and even to call her "mom" if he so chooses. This kind of right to his biological parents is a natural right, and no one can take this right away from him, only violate it (until he becomes an adult and can reclaim it for himself).

Do you think that donor-conceived children don't do these things? I invite you to read the latest post from the website of Umbillicly Challenged, who at 20 years old finally packed her suitcases and took off to meet her real, biological mother for the first time. She left her protesting "social" parents behind, even as they left umpteen messages on her cell phone. Her description of what she experienced when she met her real mother is worth the read.

Commercializing Human Life in Canada

2007-08-20T07:55:00.001-05:00

Margaret Somerville is probably the most famous ethicist in Canada. She is a professor of both medicine and law at McGill University in Montreal, and she has a very special role in Canadian public life. In a testament to the fact that human nature has a need for a sure moral compass, for a definite right and wrong even when they no longer believe in God, Margaret Somerville is the unofficial priest of Canadian atheism. This is not a role that is only hers, because it is true of nearly every ethicist these days. But she is the most well known of these gurus of right and wrong, who tell people what is right when people no longer believe in an absolute right and wrong.

But I digress. Regardless of where Margaret Somerville gets her personal ethical convictions, she does seem to get it right most of the time.

The other day, Somerville wrote an excellent article in the Ottawa Citizen (she also wrote a similar article on MercatorNet). She discusses how in Canada, a growing coalition of disparate interests is trying to push for the further commercialization of human life in the "baby business", the reproductive industry. Currently Canada doesn't allow surrogates and gamete donors to be paid for their services. A lot of people who have something at stake are complaining about this and are gearing up to pressure for changes. Where would this lead us? Right down the ol' road to the depersonalization of the human person, basically: we are turning children, people and human body parts into objects for sale and ownership. Wombs for sale, eggs for sale, sperm for sale, embryos for sale, babies for sale (by traditional surrogates) - highest price based on highest quality, best quality to the highest bidder! People for sale, lives for sale. Buy a person, buy a life. Freedom for sale. That's called being "progressive."

These is a chance to do something about it right now. The Assisted Human Reproduction Office of Canada is holding a public consultation on this issue, and the deadline for comments is September 14, 2007. Anyone can comment. Please consider submitting your comments. You can read the consultation document and find out how to comment here (it's the first document at the top of the page).

One step closer to artificial wombs

2007-08-16T10:22:00.000-05:00

An artificial uterus has been created to allow eggs and sperm to come together, and the early embryo to grow, in more "optimal" conditions.

Having babies with sister's ovarian tissue

2007-08-15T09:47:00.000-05:00

According to this article, scientists have now successfully transplanted ovarian tissue from one non-identical twin sister to the other, who started menstruating normally. If she gets pregnant, she will get pregnant with her sister's eggs - but they will have been matured and released within her own body. So she is only a tiny sliver of a distance away from being the "real" mother. The genetics don't come from her, but they are stored, matured and released in her body. The game of chance (regarding which egg will develop and be released) is played out within her belly.

Then there is the case of identical twins, which have apparently also successfully undergone ovarian tissue transplant-donations.

What about the resulting children? Who is the "real" mother?

Even as I maintain that the "real" mother is clearly the biological mother, the woman who originally produced the eggs and whose genetics are in the children, this twisting of nature is still enough to produce a massive migrane.

UK babies as sources of spare parts

2007-08-14T09:54:00.000-05:00

Do you have a sick child that is in need of a kidney donor or a bone marrow transplant? In the UK, you need look no further. Now you will be able to skip the organ donor waiting list and have a new baby to provide these services for your existing precious child.

The UK is considering legislation that would allow parents to create "saviour siblings" to treat their ailing current children. The conditions these children have need not be fatal or life-threatening, only serious. They include "sickle-cell anaemia, renal failure, kidney disorders and spinal diseases."

A tiny voice of reason peeps in at the end of the news story, saying: "This process is wrong because choosing one embryo means discarding the others, and because the purpose of creating that child is not for its own sake but for its cord blood."

Exactly. Imagine being created for your kidney, bone marrow, or cord blood. All the other embryos didn't make it through the selection process - your brothers and sisters were thrown into the garbage not because there was something really wrong with them, but simply because their tissue failed to match the tissue of an existing sibling. You are the survivor, only because you have the kidney that they want and plan to take.

You of course have no choice about donating these things. So in reality, it is not a true donation. It is a "harvesting" of the ripe product once you are born. The first thing your parents think of as the nurse presents you to your mother's arms is: "The kidney is ready!" And off you go to the operating room.

Great. That's how I always wanted to be welcomed into the world. And after the kidney is transplanted, you of course have to hang around for the next 18 years, since they can't very well get rid of you. But if they could have had only the kidney, without having all the rest of you attached to it - who is to say that they wouldn't have done it?

You are a product, like a tree that is grown for its apples, like a cow that is kept for its milk. You are not their equal, because your body belongs to them, and they take from it what they want, before you are even old enough to realize.

And these people are your parents, and society lets them do it. Of course, the parents who want to create saviour siblings are calling this legislation "a great step forward".

Yes. Forward...and down the cliff, like lemmings. Forward...into the pagan past. Forward...beyond ethical bounds and into the darkness. Forward...because forward must mean improvement and progress, right?

The incredible resemblance of parents and children

2007-08-12T21:12:00.000-05:00

It's nice to see your own face reflected in someone else. Somehow you don't feel like a total alien anymore. You belong in the world, there are others like you! You were not a freak accident but part of a plan. You were meant to be this way, and yes, you do fit in!

Congratulations to the lucky donor-conceived girl who found her real dad.

Another similar article about other happy reunions is here.

A sperm donor reaches out to his kids, and they want to call him "Dad"

2007-08-09T08:16:00.000-05:00

This is what all those "intended" parents dread. They spend so much of their energy convincing themselves and each other that the biological parents don't matter to the child. They talk about how their child is happy and well adjusted, successful and popular, and well, nothing is missing from the child's life.

Then one day, the sperm donor shows up on the scene. And the child calls him DAD! How could this aberration have happened?

The moms in this article don't seem to mind, because they are mostly single moms "by choice." Their children don't have a father figure at all, so they are all just delighted to make contact with their real father.

But for those people who have spent their parenting years convincing the children that the sperm donor is a nobody, that he is a "friend" or a "good man" or an "uncle" who merely donated a cell to help "mommy and daddy" make baby, this story must be the source of shivers and nightmares.

For all those who think that the donor isn't the real father - this one admits it openly! And the kids couldn't be happier about it.

Read the story here.

Biological mom loses custody of child she signed away in traditional surrogacy agreement

2007-08-03T09:53:00.001-05:00

The nightmare scenario has happened, and not for the first time. (Read the full story here). This time it is in the UK, but it has happened a few times in the U.S. as well. Here the mom -admittedly psychologically imbalanced and apparently driven by a "compulsive desire to bear further children" - agreed to be impregnanted by the sperm of a stranger, and she signed an agreement to give up the child to that stranger and his wife. But once the child was born, lo and behold she refused to give it up. She kept her son, who is now 17 months old.

Alas, the court found that the boy's "natural father" and his wife would be "better parents" for the boy than his de facto natural mother and her husband. So, the woman now has to follow up on her agreement and give up her own son - a forced adoption, really.

What a convoluted case. This is the twisted world that we are sinking into as surrogacy becomes mainstream and socially acceptable. We are playing fire with natural human emotions, attachments and relationships. When babies are conceived with gametes from two people who wouldn't touch each other with a ten-foot pole, then we are asking for these kinds of problems. When we ask women to sign away their natural right to the child conceived and born of them, we are guaranteeing these kinds of problems.

The biological parents here both want the child, they both love him, and they both have an equal, "natural" (as the court put it) right to the child. But they were never married, they were never in a relationship, they were never physical and possibly they don't even know each other - and at this point they hate each other. So for the child, this is a zero-sum game: he has to lose one to win one, and by winning one he loses the other. It's clear that in such an arrangement, the child is the loser. The only winners here are the adults - the bio mom gets $$$ in her pocket (though she nurses a broken heart) and the bio dad gets his precious baby boy, predictably the "most wanted and loved baby in the world.".

Another "Rotten Apple": An ungrateful donor-conceived adult explains how he feels, and why

2007-08-02T07:53:00.000-05:00

One year ago, a young man wrote an article for The Independent in the United Kingdom. He was 23 years old, and his name was Tom Ellis. Two years earlier, he had found out that his he and his younger brother were both conceived using the sperm of two different donors. The following are excerpts from his personal reflection on his conception story:

I had been taught by my parents, and at school, that any family is OK so long as somebody loves you. It's not. I wish it were. I now have a deep need to find out who my father is. I want to know what he looks like, where he is, what he enjoys, which parts of my character I share with him. I need to know who it is that makes me who I am. You can't put a child or an adult into a situation like this and tell them that all you need is love and care, because it's not true. You need the genetic links, too.

My brother was shocked at first, but now he doesn't think about it. It's not something he wants to think about. We're not close. Now my mum and her husband are divorced my brother still sees him, but I don't.

I don't call him Dad any more. He just doesn't fulfil that role for me at all. Looking back, I realise that he never did. If I had known, I wouldn't have put up with some of the things I did. He was not a father figure. He just had these children who were living with him.

The relationship with my mum has been very difficult too, since I found out. We are able to talk about it to a certain extent, but she deliberately put me in a situation where I have little hope of ever knowing my father. It is a terrible and cruel thing to do to somebody, to create somebody, and bring them into existence, with that intention. I think now that she didn't understand what she was doing, and wasn't very well informed, but it was still a selfish act.

She said that at the time she had counselling, but I get the impression that it was minimal. It seems to have been intended to get them both to be OK with the actual procedure, but not to think about the consequences to the person created through it. But it's not just the clinic's responsibility: it is society's in general. This is something that causes a great deal of pain - and that shouldn't be allowed.

It is difficult to say this in a way that doesn't shock people or make me sound psychologically damaged, but I don't think I should have been born. I can't compare living under these conditions and not living at all, but nobody should ever be created under these circumstances.

I expect that I probably have quite a lot of siblings, too, because when my parents wanted to conceive my brother there was no sperm left from my father, so they had to use a different donor. I'd like to find them, but it is not as important as trying to find my father.

I know that not everyone who was donor-conceived feels the way that I do. But I'd be surprised if deep down - however happy their family lives are - they don't all have some desire to know who their father - or even mother - is. Something is missing, and I think they are probably in denial, and they actually do want to know where they came from. Essentially, what people are doing when they donate sperm or eggs is giving away their own children, and if society thinks that's OK, I'd be surprised.

I have done a Master's degree at Cambridge and am reasonably successful, but it doesn't make me feel any better about not knowing who I am.

There is a saying that there are two lasting bequests we can give our children: one is roots and the other is wings. I think donor-conception denies a child both of these. I feel like a tree that has half of its roots missing. And without them, I can hardly stand up.

How many children a year are born from egg donation and artificial insemination?

2007-08-01T07:53:00.000-05:00

In case you were wondering - and these figures are from the United States alone:

In 1992...there were just 1,802 attempts by women to become pregnant using someone else's eggs, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Three years later, there were more than 4,738 such cycles; by 2004, the most recent year for which data has been published, there were 15,175 cycles, resulting in 5,449 babies. By comparison, some 22,911 children were adopted from abroad that year, and although there are no official figures, one survey estimated that at least the same number are conceived annually via donor insemination. Donor eggs are now used in 12 percent of all in vitro fertilization (I.V.F.) attempts, making it among the fastest-growing infertility treatments.

This also gives an idea of the exponential growth of these treatments.

And what about births to older mothers?

The birthrate among women ages 40-44 has risen 62 percent since 1990, while the rate among those in their late 40s has more than doubled. Among those who used I.V.F. in 2004, about a third of the 43-year-olds used someone else's eggs; by 47 years old, 91 percent did.

Where does your baby come from?

2007-07-31T07:48:00.000-05:00

A recent article reports on where Japanese couples who needed third-party eggs or sperm got these gametes:

Of those who donated ova, 87 were the wives' sisters, including 3 sisters-in-law, 12 were relatives, including cousins, and 12 were friends and acquaintances. 23 of the men who donated sperm were the husbands' brothers, including 1 brother-in-law, 24 were fathers and two were friends.

How fascinating. How will the children feel when they learn that their real mommy gave them away to be raised by their aunt? How will they feel when they realize that their grandfather is really their father?

Parents and doctors don't let themselves be bothered by such disturbing thoughts. The children will be happy of course, because all they need is love! It doesn't matter who loves them - strangers are fully welcome to take on the parental role. A parent is whomever the adults INTEND to be the parent - and thinking makes it so! The children will be fine as long as they are cuddled and pampered and have appropriate role models of both genders.

Why would they want their "real" mommy and daddy? Puh-LEEEEZE. Biology is so passe.

Those little IVF brats should be grateful for their medical problems! Without them they wouldn't even be alive.

2007-07-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

A new article reports on a study that children conceived via IVF are more likely to have health problems even later in life. It says among other things:

A study of 3,980 articles in medical and scientific journals between 1980 and 2005 has shown significantly higher risks of long-term medical problems for children conceived through artificial procreation such as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, a method in which a selected sperm is injected into the ovum.

...Most recently, a study published in the June 21, 2007 issue of Human Reproduction showed that children conceived through IVF visit hospitals significantly more times (1.76 vs. 1.07 times) than naturally conceived children.

This is news which confirms what many who are involved or seriously interested in the industry already know. But when has the truth ever stopped us? After all, this kind of news would only be important if we really thought about the children more than about ourselves.

Of course, a "risk" is merely that; it is not a certainty. And we are already way past that. Today, we are INTENTIONALLY creating children who have problems. For instance, with the afore-mentioned intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), we are knowingly and intentionally creating children who are as infertile as their fathers - this is a proven fact and the doctors and the fathers know this, and yet they do it anyway. Moreover, ICSI may also pass on other genetic problems such as a predisposition to cancer. But who cares?

What I hear from the parents who do this is that well, creating children who have problems is still better than not creating them at all - after all, they get to LIVE, even though they are flawed! Isn't existence better than not existing? Isn't a life with problems better than no life at all?

Indeed, children are being tailor-made with disabilities that suit the parents. Children have already been intentionally created (through PGD and IVF) to be midgets, because their parents are midgets, and children have been intentionally created deaf, because their parents are deaf.

And all these parents are supposedly doing these children a favor by creating them, because a deaf life or a midget life or an infertile life is still better than no life at all. Those darn kids should be grateful! Right?

Egg co-parenting

2007-07-13T08:20:00.000-05:00

The Seattle Times had an interesting article recently on two moms - the social mom and the "egg mom" who have maintained contact so that the twin daughters are growing up knowing the female source of their genes - the woman whom normal people would still call the "real mother."

Of course, this "egg mom" doesn't think of herself as the real mother of these girls - and of course, in our relativist, subjectivist world, that would indeed seem to "make it so," as Captain Picard used to say.

Except, there is a little glitch. Biology says that the "egg mom" is in fact the MOTHER, the ONLY one, regardless of what she may think of that or whether or not she agrees with it. Biology doesn't ask for personal opinions, and doesn't change based on social trends, opinion polls or political correctness.

And the girls may in time agree. They can't be expected to necessarily stick to the neat little story their "co-parents" have invented. Many donor-created children don't necessarily agree that their mother's egg is just a helpful little insertion into their social parents' reproduction - they know very well that the egg is identified with the person whose name in the real world is always "mother." They know very well that they have been half-adopted, and that they are being raised by a woman who is, in fact, a stranger. To quote "Son of a Surrogate", who explains how such children may feel:

What do we think about what you think? What you think doesn’t even make sense to most of us. It doesn’t make sense to the majority of people...Do you expect us to have this sort of delusional thinking that you do or do you expect us to think like 99.9% of the general population...

Read the article here.

I'm baaack

2007-07-12T09:31:00.000-05:00

Though I have not been blogging for the past 3 months (family vacations, work comittments, etc.), I have not become less interested in the area of assisted repro tech. There is just so much to cover! And even though I've been away, I've noticed that quite a few people actually read this blog...so I want to continue getting the word out on children's rights!

Here is an interesting link: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/infertility/index.html
CBC Radio One in Toronto did an extensive series on infertility and infertility treatments, and you can listen to the whole series online. Especially worth hearing is the interview with Olivia Pratten, who explains how the children of donor insemination actually feel - hello, is anyone listening?

I've also finished reading the Baby Business, and am making my way though Everything Conceivable by Liza Mundy. Both books are quite good. The Baby Business was a quicker read, but it had fewer stories. Everything Conceivable is a bit wordy and slow, but on the other hand, packed with individual portraits that are endlessly interesting - and disturbing. Both books are highly worth reading for anyone who is interested in this area.

Well-Known Writer Ends Quest for an Egg Donor

2007-04-04T08:19:00.000-05:00

Dani Shapiro, an articulate and well-known writer and journalist, wrote an excellent article in Elle magazine in February about her experiences with searching for an egg donor. Her account is brilliantly insightful and honest.

Dani's article sheds a lot of insight into the consumerist mentality of those who search for egg donors. She writes shamelessly: "I became aware that I never would have chosen myself as a donor." She also reveals how egg donors are marketed like prized horses.

Dani also writes about her feelings of jealousy and being cheated on as her husband's sperm fertilized the eggs of another woman:

"At the very moment we sipped our drinks, Carly's eggs were in a petri dish being fertilized by my husband's sperm. I felt jealous, as if she were the other woman in our marriage. Michael's genetic material - his DNA - was cheating on me with the DNA of this blond, blue-eyed UCLA Law student. I imagined his millions of sperm swimming, tails wagging madly, toward her lovely, ripe eggs."

When the resulting embryos were being implanted into a surrogate mother, Dani felt similarly uncomfortable:

"Embryos that were half my beloved husband's. I felt nauseated as I accomapnied Sahakian into the room where Sandra was lying, her lower body covered by a white sheet, her feet in stirrups. All I wanted to do was shout, "No!" But I couldn't say a thing....I was acutely aware that I was watching something happen that I could never take back...."

As she pursued the goal of having a child through egg donation and surrogate gestation, it seems that Dani realized that the egg donor would indeed be the real mother of the resulting child. She also realized that to use donor eggs is, in a sense, to introduce infidelity (a third person) into the marriage forever - another person who will forever be the mother of her husband's child.

Dani ended her quest after the implantation of the embryos into a surrogate failed. She had realized too much about "the brave new world of assisted reproduction - a world, it must be said, that is many things, but normal is not one of them...The best - or perhaps the only - way to go through the process is to keep blinders on and run mainacally toward the finish line. Stop, and you may stop forever."

Highly reccommended! Read it here.

The Gay "Right" To Parenthood

2007-04-03T07:41:00.000-05:00

A baby-making-and-selling clinic in LA has just launched "the first dedicated program for gay men wanting to become parents."

According to the article, the clinic says that it is "responding to huge demand from gay male couples around the world who want their own biological children but are often thwarted by prejudice and bureaucracy."

Ah, of COURSE...it's societal discrimination that prevents gay couples from having children!

Not to mention that ever-present, natural and maddeningly non-partisan obstacle: biology.

Well hey, if you're going to go the extra mile and buy a baby for $60,000 (the average cost at the clinic), why not choose the sex? "three-quarters of gay couples pay extra to choose the sex of their baby"(over 60% want boys). And why not choose the hair color and eye color? Wouldn't want baby to clash with the accessories. What about choosing the temperament and intelligence? Wouldn't want a baby that's too demanding and hampers the lifestyle. All the choices are available as the purchasing prospective parents sift through donor attributes.

So you see, when preparing to have a donor baby, there are so many things to mull over and worry about that are much more important than whether your future baby will have a mommy or not. After all, mommies are so passe and culturally imposed upon us. They don't really contribute anything irreplaceable or special, either because of their biological relationship or because of their gender - and neither do daddies. Everyone is replaceable and interchangeable, because all that matters is love, love, love...like in that song by the Beatles. It doesn't matter who loves you, as long as someone does.

And if you say anything else, then you're just plain being mean and discriminatory to those who can't produce their own children.

Notice for those who don't want to wear the big yellow star labelled "bigot and homophobe": better get on the bandwagon and support the elimination of children's fundamental human rights to know and be raised by both of their natural, biological parents.

Who cares about legal or human rights? It's about what's "compassionate"...

2007-04-02T08:24:00.000-05:00

The myth of idyllic homosexual families with is being deflated bit by bit with each similar story of bitter post-love battle that makes it into the media. Recently I wrote about one such case, where the bioloigical mom was fighting against her ex-lesbian partner (biologically unrelated to the child) regarding visitation rights. Now another similar case has surfaced.

Sara Wheeler is a lesbian woman who in 2000 was in a cohabiting relationship with Melody Wheeler. At that time, Sara conceived her own son through artificial insemination with donor sperm. Two years later, Melody legally adopted the boy with Sara's consent.

Some years later, Sara and Melody split up, and Sara filed to have Melody's adoption invalidated.

Based on the law and legal reasoning alone, the right decision would indeed be to invalidate the adoption, since it appears to have failed the legal criteria from the very start. The reasons for this were clearly stated by Justice Carley of the GA Supreme COurt on February 26 ,2007, in a dissent in which he criticized the 4-3 decision of that court to refuse to hear Sara's case (his dissent was joined by two other justices on the Court). Read his dissent here.

However, when faced with the powerful gay lobby, who cares about the language and letter of the law? This is about political correctness. One openly gay state rep thus said of Carley's dissent that it "sounded very anti-gay and very anti-gay-family". It doesn't matter that Carley is right. What matters is that he shouldn't even try to be right. He should just give in, because to enforce the law is to be mean to gay parents. Indeed, that seems to have been the judgement of the majority of the GA Supreme Court.

And there we are. Anyone who wants to be a parent can be a parent, even to children that have no biological connection to them, and regardless of the law or the basic rights of the biological parents or children.

By the way, I am not "blaming" Melody for this situation. Sara and Melody are both equally to blame for this tangled mess. This mess comes directly from the mentality that parenting and biology aren't connected - and this is something they both believed. They decided to use donor sperm, as if the biological father meant nothing to their child. Since they so easily erased one biological parent from their child's life, then why should the other biological parent get any special treatment? Sara cooked her own soup in this case.

Sperm donor recognized as one of three legal parents

2007-03-12T07:43:00.000-05:00

On January 2, 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the highest court in the province of Ontario) made the monumental decision that a child could have three legal parents (read the decision here). This case is already being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as such a redefinition has serious consequences on everything from step-families to polygamy. Perhaps Ontario birth certificates would now be able to provide three blanks: Parent A, Parent B, and Parent C.

The case involves a lesbian couple and a male friend who donated his sperm to help the lesbians have a baby. The male donor (who has his own family and children) chose to stay casually involved in his new son's life - he has dinner with the lesbian couple once a week. Most importantly, both he and the lesbians recognize that he is this child's biological father, and the lesbians allowed him to stay involved in that capacity, although they are the "primary caregivers" of the child.

This is a new trend that I have noticed taking root among homosexual parents. Since they can't hide the fact that they needed a third party to bring about "their" child, they come out of the closet about it - they "celebrate" it and create one big happy family, with the real father or mother becoming a very special friend - or in this case, a third parent.

The lesbian couple here went even further. They decided not to take the biological father off the birth certificate, because they recognize his importance and role (imagine, a donor father is recognized by everyone without the blink of an eye as a rightful legal parent! ). Makes one wonder about all of the social parents who waste so much blog space fighting against the idea that donors are real parents.

Rather, the lesbians sued to ADD the nonbiological lesbian "mom" as a third legal parent - and they won.

While the implicit recognition of the importance and rightful role of donor fathers is a good thing, the "three legal parents" decision is very disturbing. If three parents, why not four? (If the lesbians had used both a sperm and egg donor, the court would presumably have had to recognize four legal parents). Why not ten? Perhaps it really does take a village to raise a child. This is the true redefinition of parenthood and the family, and could snowball us straight into a world we do not recognize.

The outcome of this case shows that when we divorce biology and parenthood, we end up in a vertiable mess of unknown proportions. Once we allow biological strangers to get their name on the birth certificate AS IF they were natural parents, just because they love and care for the child, it's hard to keep the floodgates closed.

One problem is, love and care are unstable - they are not as immutable as blood, and it's hard to hang lifetime duties, responsibilities and rights on such flimsy hooks. If the lesbians break up, the nonbiological lesbian will now be forever involved with decision-making about that child.

Another problem is that love and care can be provided to a child by any number of people. There is nothing about love and care that is necessarily limited to two people. For example, if the biological lesbian mom discovers that she is bisexual, and she gets into a new long-term relationship with both a man and a woman, and these now love and help to raise the lucky child, why shouldn't they become the fouth and fifth legal parents?

How is egg or sperm donation any different than donating a kidney?

2007-03-08T12:45:00.000-05:00

One of the arguments often advanced by those who favor donor conception is the comparison of egg and sperm donation to organ, blood or tissue donation. They will say, for example:

If my kidneys didn't work, would you have a problem with me accepting a kidney transplant?" No? "okay, then, my ovaries (testes) don't work, so I accepted an egg (sperm) transplant."

or:

Would you get a blood transfusion if you needed one to save your life? That is someone else's donation, is it wrong? I don't think so.

This argument is an integral part of the "education" (some would say indoctrination, or rather, brainwashing) received by donors to prepare them for their altruistic task.

Thus for example, the website of the Abraham Center for Life (a baby "Ikea" with ready-to-assemble babies for sale), features an egg donor who is described as being "clearly psychologically prepared for the procedure". The donor dutifully and beautfully states that:

"I am not emotionally attached to my eggs. I do not go into mourning every month that I ovulate and lose an egg. I am not giving my couple a baby, I am giving them a chance to create a child. I cannot create their child. It is their desire, action, persistence and sperm that creates the child. If it were not for their desire to have a child, this particular child would not exist. I cannot guarantee that they will have a baby. All I can do is donate my eggs and the rest is up to them and God."

It would be a mistake to dismiss this argument as marginal to the repro tech industry, as it is central to the whole mindframe required to support donor conception. Indeed, the whole industry rises or falls on the truth of this one basic claim.

In order to believe that donor conception is ethically acceptable, both the donors and the social parents ABSOLUTELY NEED to believe that the donor is not giving away his or her own child, but merely a "cell."

That's because it is ethically acceptable to receive someone else's freely-given organ or tissue (though it is not ethical, and it is in fact illegal, to buy and sell these).

However, it is quite another matter to "donate" your own child to someone, or to accept a "donated" child. If the donors and social parents woke up to the reality of what they are doing, they would not sleep quite as well at night.

So they cling to the deception that an egg and a sperm are just like a blood cell, a kidney, or a liver.

Of course, this is false. There is only one way for anyone to have their own genetic child, and that is through their own egg or sperm. The whole purpose of your egg or the sperm is to create a child that is genetically yours. Whenever a child is created using your egg or sperm, that child is biologically your own child. You will always be the biological mother or father of the resulting child, and the bond between you will be natural and immutable. No power on earth will be able to eliminate this biological relationship.

This of course is a significant difference from donating blood, liver, kidneys, and any other organ or tissue in the body, which can't be used to create another living being that will be your own child.

So while the well-indoctrinated donor repeats hypnotically "I am not giving my couple a baby, I am giving them a chance to create a child. It is their desire, action, persistence and sperm that creates the child," the truth is quite the opposite. If the Abraham Clinic were to revise its statement in accordance with the truth, rather than with marketing propaganda, the statement would say something like this:

"I am not emotionally attached to my eggs. I do not go into mourning every month that I ovulate and lose an egg. However, by nature I do get emotionally attached to my own biological children, which can and will be created whenever these eggs are fertilized and develop into a baby.

These children also by nature get attached to me, because we share a unique bond that cannot be replaced or eliminated, as I am their own mother. I have a natural responsibility to care for my children, and they have a right to be cared for by me.

I am not giving my couple a baby, I am giving them a chance to create my own baby and keep it and raise it as if it were theirs.

I cannot create their child. But my eggs will enable them to create my child.

It is their desire, action, persistence and sperm, together with my eggs, that creates my child.

If it were not for their desire to have a child, this particular child of mine would not exist.

I cannot guarantee that they will have a baby. All I can do is donate my eggs, and they can combine them with their sperm, and the rest is up to them and God. This is the case in any conception, since even in a married relationship, all the couple can do is try, and the rest is up to God.

However, even though I can't guarantee anything, whenever a baby does actually result from my eggs and their sperm, it will be half my own baby. It will be as close to me biologically as any baby can ever get, and as close to me as any children that I choose to keep and raise. It will be my son or daughter, whom I have allowed to be created with the intention of giving him or her away to an infertile couple."

Maybe if egg and sperm donors were prepared by signing statements like these, they would no longer be so surprised when they meet their resulting donor children. Currently, donors sometimes seem to be utterly shocked by the fact that their donor children are, well, so THEIRS.

For example, one man who donated sperm in the 1980s was tracked down by one of his donor daughters, and agreed to meet with her. He said of the experience: "Seeing her was very emotional...The profile, the mannerisms, everything was so much like me that it was scary."

Like, whoa, she is SO much like me! How could this have happened? All I did was donate sperm, and then one day I meet this look-alike who seems like my own flesh and blood! Too weird.

So Bob has decided that "this experience was so overwhelming that he is not sure that he will do it again. ''If the bank comes to me and asks me to do this [meet his donor children] again, I'll probably say just release medical information but nothing other than that,'' he said.

So sad.

On being ugrateful for having been born

2007-03-05T12:57:00.000-05:00

Several times I've encountered the following argument from people who are pro-repro tech: "If you are against reproductive technologies, then you are saying that the people born with the use of these technologies would have been better off never having been born."

The same argument is used to silence the children of egg and sperm donors, if they happen to question the goodness of their conception. Are they saying that despite living happy and fulfilled lives, they would rather not exist? How ungrateful and how very sad.

The presumption in this argument is that as long as you are alive, you should be grateful and happy about the circumstances of your conception, because after all, it created you.

The absurdity of this argument becomes visible when it is transplanted into other circumstances:

If the children of rape say they are against rape, are they saying they would rather not exist?
Do the children of incest, pedophilia and prostitution have a duty to support incest, pedophilia and prostitution?
Must the children of one night stands support random hookups and unprotected intercourse?

of course we are always grateful to be alive. However, it would be absurd to have an obligation to support the way we were conceived, not matter how unethically it happened.

Despite the fact that it gave us life, we can recognize that the way we were created was unethical and has caused us and others great pain. We can be against hurting others in the same way that we were hurt.

It is thus no contradiction to be glad for one's life, and yet against the perpetuation of this failed experiment upon other children in the future.

Why It's Not Enough to "Know"

2007-03-02T13:08:00.000-05:00

A new fashion is here among the parents and providers of donor conception. It is now a good thing to tell your children that they were donor conceived, and even to be proud of it. It is "coming-out-of-the-closet" time! By saying these things openly to our children and everyone else, we will MAKE everything okay!

An article on the Donor Conception Network by Olivia Montuschi, the mother of a DI daughter, is typical of this trend.

One reason why this new movement has come about is because past generations of DI parents have found that they can't fully enjoy and develop their relationships with their children when they are in fact living a lie, when they are hiding an enormous and fundamental secret that their children have a right to know, and when they spend their lives in trying to conceal the truth and in fear of when their child could accidentally find out. (Montuchi even describes one DI mom who believed that her recurrent cancer had been due to the strain of keeping the "Secret", but she still believed it was all worth it).

Another reason for the change in approach by DI parents is the negative experiences of many parents whose children have indeed accidentally found out the truth at an older age. Montuschi goes through these effects, and even discusses how big the risk is that a child could accidentally find out.

So, forced into a corner because the quality of their parent-child relationship is at stake, DI parents are finally waking up to the fact that "parents' rights to secrecy would not be considered as weighty as the rights of a child".

That's all great, and a step in the right directon. Telling the truth is certainly liberating for the parents who live with their dark secret, and it probably releases some of their guilt.

However, it's not nearly enough. These DI parents and providers seem to think that just by telling their children "oh, by the way, we intentionally robbed you of your real mommy or daddy, because we wanted a baby of our own", their children will smile and say "that's okay, I love you and I consider you my real mommy and daddy."

Of course, children need a lot more than that. What they really need is to know and be raised by their real mommy or daddy. It's not enough just to tell them that their real parent exists somewhere out there, and that they were purposefully separated from him or her because a stranger really wanted to love them.

Playing Tricks on Ourselves

2007-03-02T12:12:00.000-05:00

There is a truly golden 1998 article on the Donor Conception Network by Walter Merricks. It is called "Is It Ethical?" The subtitle is: "Is it ethical deliberately to bring into the world a child who will be unable to know half of his or her genetic provenance?"

Merricks acknowledges that biological origins are probably "at least as" important as a good upbringing. He admits that DI children may experience "future despair and 'genetic bewilderment'" and "conflicting feelings of loss and sadness," and that these consequences of donor conception "will perpetuate themselves through the next and the next and the next generation." He also realizes that children may "blame, argue, resent or revolt" against their social parents.

Yet despite all of these realizations, Merricks unexpectedly concludes that it is in fact ethically okay to put children through this mysery. He says that social parents are still practicing "responsible parenthood" as long as they inform their children that they are donor conceived and as long as they "offer them some strength and confidence; and try to prepare them for life as best we can" "in the context of a loving relationship."

What a classic display of twisting the truth to fit our wants and needs. Merricks' conclusion simply does not follow in any way from his admissions about the effects this has on children.

This willfull self-blindness is evindent in other articles on the DCN site. Talk about a fascinating social study in human behavior.

For example, read "The Things Children Say - The text of Alison Cobb’s talk to the Bristol National meeting." There, Alison discusses her two DI children, who were told from birth that they were donor conceived. Her son has been fairly mute about it all. However, Allison discusses the trauma that her daughter has gone through as a result:

"Octavia was a different kettle of fish entirely and started being quite troubled by the whole thing. She was very moody and would come out with comments such as "sometimes I think you are not my real Mummy" ...She also became very close to Daddy and was inclined to slightly push me aside....One of the concepts that she found very difficult to handle was the realisation that she wouldn't look like me. This was not something we had mentioned to her but she had obviously worked this one out for herself."

Her daughter felt "not belonging, different, not like her friends etc, etc." Finally, her social parents decided to send her to professionals, and she's seen various people to talk about her problems.

Alison's daughter has obviously had a very tough time dealing with her origins. She is still in school, so only time will tell how this issue will continue to effect her.

And yet, Alison seems completely unrepentant and appears to still support DI despite her child's problems. She ends on a chirpy note: "I am aware that there will be major issues to deal with in the future but right now we feel we have climbed the first hurdle and still have two very happy and secure and affectionate children."

Really, your children are happy and secure? I guess that's why your daughter is seeing doctors and counselors to get over her grief and confusion.

Jill Hawkins, mother of seven, mother to none

2007-03-01T13:28:00.000-05:00

Jill Hawkins is a true "baby vending machine." Drop in 12,000 pounds and your husband's sperm, and nine months later, you get a baby to take home with you. Jill is a "traditional" surrogate - one who uses her own eggs and carries the baby to term, only to give it away to someone else once it is born. (see photo here)

The poor woman has been single all her life. She has no children at home -only cats. She has struggled with chronic deep depression, even attempting suicide. She has struggled with her weight. She has struggled with feelings of loneliness and neediness.

And at 27, she found the magic answer to her troubles: she would find meaning and love in life by giving away her own children to grateful infertile couples. She got a high from the feeling of pregnancy, which made her feel important and validated her weight. She fed off the pampering and attention she received from the infertile couple who were waiting for her to deliver. Even afterwards they owe her a debt of gratitude - though of course, she is no longer really welcome and sees her children once a year (read an interview with the social parents of Jill Hawkins' 6th baby here).

Oh, and the financial reward was quite an incentive for Jill too: "There's the emotional turmoil to think of as well as the health risks. But the money's lovely and it allows me to have good holidays and do the things I want with my life."

So that is what she did - seven times. She always claimed she didn't want children of her own - but now she finally admits that she would indeed like to have children. Except, at 42, it's very unlikely she'll have any children of her own.

Of course, she already does have children: two girls (14 and 3), four boys (12, 8, 5, 4), and a newborn baby. Only, she's given all of these children away to strangers for 12,000 pounds each.

Jill says of these children: "I think of them as my friends' children. Their real mothers are the women who are bringing them up, loving them, nurturing them and shaping their lives and personalities."

She may say this and really believe it, in which case she is deluding herself. I wonder if her children will be similarly deluded.

One thing is sure: neither she nor the "social" parents can speak for the children and guarantee that they will be fine with this arrangement. All pretending and role-playing aside, the fact is that Jill is the real, biological mom of these children. Her parents are their real grandparents. Her siblings are their real aunts and uncles, and their children are the real cousins. The children will someday grow up and fully realize this fact. Everyone will tell try to convince them otherwise. But in another article, even Jill admits the truth: "It is still half my child."

How can one not feel extremely sorry for Jill? Her story is truly heartbreaking. She even admits that giving her own children away was very difficult for her:

"initially you do feel very empty and upset. Your body has spent nine months nurturing this baby and suddenly it's not there anymore, so emotionally it can be quite traumatic. The first time, with Lucy, was the worst because I'd never had a child before. I experienced feelings I'd never had before, overwhelming emotions of wanting to protect this little baby. I didn't know if I would want to change my mind or how I might feel once Lucy was born, whether I would bond with her. I never thought of her as my own and I never wanted to keep her, but it was very hard to deal with once she was gone. I went to my parents, who've always been very supportive, and just cried for days."

She also found it hard to give up her second baby: "I needed the money and was honest about it with the couple. But I regretted doing it for financial reasons. It made me feel depressed afterwards....I couldn't detach myself like I thought I could. I couldn't think of it as a business deal. It upset me."

The subsequent babies were also hard to give up: "I cry my eyes out every time. But afterwards I sit and think about the last few hours we had together and look at photographs....Eventually it settles down but it's hard for me. Most surrogates go home to their families but I come home to nothing....I'm all on my own and feel very vulnerable."

But as sad as one feels for Jill Hawkins, who has farmed herself out for love and money and sold her own children through neediness and greed, one feels even more sad for the children. They are the pawns that everyone is playing with here. They pay for it all by seeing their real mom once a year, by dealing with a deep sense of rejection and grief, by never knowing half of their family, and by having a harder time figuring out their own identity.

Why do we let desparate infertile couples, who in their child-fever are not able to think rationally, take advantage of women like Jill Hawkins?

Frankly, it's clear that we can't rely either on Jill or the infertile couple to make the right decision here. Only the state can be disinterested and rational enough to protect the interests of the child. Surrogacy should be against the law, because no one has the right to buy or sell a child. Parents should not even have the right to give their own child away unless they are truly unable to care for it. This is because it's not just about the adults - children have fundamental rights too, and even natural parents don't have the authority to violate them.

A Brooklyn Egg Donor Sells Child for $8000

2007-02-28T10:00:00.001-05:00

In case anyone doubts that there really is a baby market, this aticle might shed a little reality into your world. Jennifer Dzuira, a 28-year-old egg donor from Brooklyn, admits that she does it for the money.

It's illegal to sell human organs. But it's not illegal to sell babies today. According to the article, 10,000 egg donors sell their eggs (and the babies these eggs will make) each year.

Yet many of these egg donors are probably not responsible, despite tragedy that their acts have caused, a tragedy that their children pay for all their lives because they are raised by a stranger rather than their own mother, and they are separated from an entire half of their biological family, their heritage and even their ethnic group.

Jennifer, like many other egg donors, believes (at least at this moment) that she has done a noble thing. She had donated a cell, not her own baby. She says that she is just a "small" part of the whole picture, since this baby would not exist if it weren't for the two infertile parents who wanted it.

It's easy to think that way before the baby comes along. While the baby is just a potential thing, it seems like it's all about us and our own rights and needs and wants. It seems that we can decide what we want reality to be, and when we agree and sign a piece of paper, then that is what makes it so.

Then one day the baby is born, and grows up a little, and we realize what we've done. This is a real human being. This is someone who has a mind of their own. Rights of their own. This is someone whose rights we've violated. We had no authority to decide for this child that it would be okay to take away its real parents and give it to strangers. We had no ability to decide for them that they would be fine with this arrangement.

For this child, Jennifer will never be just a "small" part of the picture. She will be 50% of the picture. She, and her parents, and her siblings, and her family, and her eventual otehr children, will all be the "natural" family of this child. She will always be its biological mother, its REAL mother. She will be the answer to many of the child's questions about itself. And that child will always long for her in a hollow place in its heart, and ache for her with a pain that won't go away.

Mothers are the new fathers; daddies are the new moms

2007-02-27T16:10:00.000-05:00

Recently I came across an older article on an Australian website, and it made me think about how we don't need fathers anymore. Now single women and lesbian couples are able to have children "from scratch" without having to deal with men at all. The clinic will deal with the man and get his sperm without the "customers" having to be bothered. The single moms and the lesbians will take the sperm home and the rest is history.

They will raise their little boy or girl with lots of love. Their baby is different because it was SO very wanted, and desired, and longed for (presumably unlike the "accidental" children of normal families). Their baby is pampered, just like a lap dog. Their baby belongs to them. They fought for their right to have that baby, and there's no way they will ever back down.

But what if their child later wants a daddy? What if that child thinks or senses that daddies have something to offer that women simply can't provide?

What's wrong with you, baby? Don't you see that love is all you need? Don't you see that men can't give you anything special and unique? Don't you see that visiting uncle Joe is just as good as having a father?

You ungrateful baby. Would you rather have not been born? Look at all that I did to have you. Look at all that you have. Look at the mountains of toys & things, and look at the sea of LOVE that I poured out on you. Why would you still want a daddy?

Don't you see that you are lucky, baby? If you had a father, especially a natural father, he'd probably neglect or abuse you. But this way you had all the love in the world!

It must be society making you say these things. They'd better stop teaching about mom-and-pop families in schools, and confusing people's heads. Fathers are NOT needed anymore! They only matter when they are wanted these days.

By the way, the same goes for mothers - single men and gay men are just as free to throw mothers to the wind, as mere "egg donors." And if the child starts to long for a mother one day? It would be a ridiculous and confused child. It must have had its head muddled by that regressive and discriminatory society. Time for some more re-education and progressive brow-beating.

God thinks it's moral - he gave me the baby

2007-02-23T13:26:00.000-05:00

Among the comments on my blog, one DI mom produced the strange argument that donor insemination is moral because God approved it by letting her get preagant. She said:

"He is the One who made it possible to have kids through DI, the doctors are just a vessel to accomplish this great thing. If God had not wanted me to have kids through DI, He would not have let me get pregnant twice and carry both kids to term."

What this mom is really saying is: "God let it happen, therefore it must be okay."

Unfortunately that argument doesn't work, because that's not how God works. As everyone has observed in this life, God lets bad things happen all the time. Let's see:

- Illness, suffering and death
- War, famine and natural disasters
- Murder, theft, rape, incest, pedophilia, and all the crimes committed by men against one another

God doesn't stop these things from happening. Does this mean God thinks they are moral? Does it mean God wants them to happen?

Often, criminals benefit from their crimes (for example, they get rich by stealing). Occasionally, children are even born as a result of rape. Does this mean that rape is "moral" because God "made it possible" to have a child through the rape?

This argument just doesn't work.

The fact is, God allows us to do both moral and immoral things, because he gave us free will. We can use science for good or for evil. And strangely, God will allow good things to come from bad things: for example, he will allow rape to bring forth a new, innocent human life. Yet this doesn't ever make the rape good.

We can use science for good ends or bad ends. God will let us create babies and kill them. God will let us create babies and take them away from their parents. We can do lots of bad things, and God will let us. But that doesn't ever mean that he approves, or that he thinks this is moral.

On "judging" and reducing a person to their mistake

2007-02-23T13:24:00.000-05:00

Among the comments left on my blog by people who have used or plan to use reproductive technologies, there is a steady refrain: don't judge us, only God can judge. In other words, who am I to point the finger and say "that was wrong"? Let me answer that.

First of all, it is not wrong to judge. It is wrong to condemn.

It is not wrong to say that something a person did was immoral. We may even have a DUTY to do so when we can alert others and prevent further harm. However, it is wrong to reduce the person to their mistake.

For example, it is not wrong to say "pedophilia is immoral," or "Bob the pedophiliac did something very immoral with a little girl". That is just a simple moral fact. We are free to say that pedophilia is wrong and that Bob did something wrong. We are free to make laws against pedophilia based on our moral judgment of its worth.

However, it would be wrong to say "Bob is evil". That's because a person is more than just their acts. A person is not just a "pedophiliac" or a "pornography addict" or a "murderer." Although we say these things, the person is more than just an act they have done. For various reasons, they may not even be responsible for the acts they have done. It is not our place to judge the human heart.

This blog is written in a passionate voice, because I feel strongly about this issue. The voice on this blog is thus strongly against reproductive technologies, and openly calls them immoral and wrong.

However, I don't intend this blog to be a condemnation of the people who have been involved in repro tech. I don't intend to reduce anyone to their mistake, and to say that a person is "bad" because of what they've done. That would be far too simplistic.

We are all evolving human beings. We all make mistakes. The person who got DI 10 years ago may not be the same person today. Moreover, I truly believe that many of the people involved in repro tech are not even responsible for the acts they have done, because they simply didn't know it was wrong. They truly believed it was a good and legitimate thing to do. They just didn't know - and many of them still don't.

I do post real stories on this blog, sometimes even the photographs of individuals. I do this to show what is happening in our society. I do this to show in a personal way the negative consequneces of repro tech.

However, I don't EVER intend to condemn any individual donors or parents who were involved in these actions. It is not my place to condemn them for their actions - that is indeed the place of God, who alone can see into the human heart.

This blog aims to INFORM, not to condemn. I hope that through the arguments, facts and resources made available on this blog, more people will realize that reproductive technologies are not the right answer to infertility.

Lesbian Ex-Partner Denied Visitation Rights to "Social" Child

2007-02-21T09:07:00.000-05:00

Finally a sane decision. In a rather unexpected twist in the current cultural climate, the Utah Supreme Court has denied parental visitation rights to a biological stranger in favor of the biological mother.

Cheryl Barlow got pregnant through artificial insemination in 2001, only a few months after beginning a lesbian relationship with Keri Jones. They had planned for the baby together. Five months into the pregnancy, the couple entered into a civil union in Vermont, and later Barlow gave birth to a baby girl. They entered into a legal agreement where JOnes became the girl's co-guardian.

Two years later, Barlow discovered that Jones had been having an affair with another woman, and Barlow ended the relationship. Barlow then converted to Christianity, overcame her lesbian tendencies and is now no longer lesbian. She did not allow Jones to visit the baby girl, and successfully petitioned the court to have Jones removed as the girl's co-guardian. Jones sued for visitation rights.

The district court in Salt Lake City granted visitation rights to Jones. However, the Utah Supreme Court has just overturned the decision, and denied Jones any parental rights over Barlow's child. Read the full ruling here (PDF file).

So at least in this case, reason and sanity seem to have prevailed. Granted, this IS Utah, so it's not exactly representative of the general U.S. trends. However, let us rejoice in one victory at a time.

In this case at least, a biological parent won the right to raise, educate and protect her own child, without interference from a biological stranger who was only present in that child's life for the first two years. It would have been a travesty to give Jones the ability to influence that child forever.

Jones' arguments were that she had helped to "plan" for the child, that she "loved" the girl, and that the girl loved her back and called her "mommy." In other words, her argument was that LOVE and INTENT, rather than biology, is what makes a family. That argument sounds lovely, but it would open the door to chaos and to everything under the sun. Why not polygamy? Why not polyamory? But most immediately, that argument violates the natural rights of children to their own biological parents, and the natural rights of parents to their biological children.

To be fair however, Jones had a point given the situation. Jones believed that love and intent is what make a family. This is what gay and lesbian parents believe. This is what heterosexual adults using repro tech believe. (or at least, this is what they constantly repeat and try to convince themselves of). This is what Barlow surely believed too while she was with Jones. So this was the implicit agreement that Jones and Barlow had entered into. So Jones was simply sticking to the understnading that she had shared with Barlow.

Jones's trouble was that Barlow finally saw the light, and realized that such an agreement violates the natural law. It cannot have binding force, any more than any criminal pact can have binding force. Barlow was thus fully within her rights to repudiate this false understanding of parenthood and family. However, Jones remains stuck in the old mindframe. She, and all others who believe that "love is all you need," surely can't wrap their mind around this ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. They see it as a slap in the face of "love". I see it as a recognition of the natural rights which come along with undeniable biological ties between parents and their own genetic children.

Now if only they could right the other wrong done to this little girl: the fact that she was intentionally deprived of her father since conception, and will probably grow up longing for her daddy all her life.

No Studies? Look at adoption

2007-02-20T12:30:00.000-05:00

Sometimes people will make the argument that there are no studies to show that genes really matter to children. They will say that it's love that really matters. If the children have love from two responsible adults, they will be just fine, even if these adults are biological strangers. The children won't miss their biological parents, because these are just "gene donors," not "real" parents.

There are studies that have been done on a very similar situation. I am coming to realize that studies done on open and closed adoption are probably the closest parallel to the donor gamete situation. This is something that others have already known for a while. The blog "Adoption Agencies Exploit People" specifically makes this connection. Also, "son of a surrogate" explains on his blog how he identifies closely with his friend who was an adoptee.

Often, the adopted children and the children of egg or sperm donors seem to tackle very similar issues. These children often have a truckload of "love" - they are very wanted and basically spoiled rotten by their infertile "social" parents who longed for them so much. And yet, these children often feel a deep void in their heart. They long for a connection to their real, biological parents.

Why do these "superloved" children care about their biological parents? It's weird, isn't it. Isn't love enough? Well, perhaps it is only human to care about that primal bond between us and the people who gave us our bodies and often also pieces of our personalities. Who among us would NOT care to know where they came from?

Indeed, in the converse, the parents also OUGHT to care about their biological children - and society has ALWAYS recgnized this until modern times, by making parents responsible for their biological children even when they don't want to be (look at child support payments). We know there is something NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL about the biological bond that cannot be erased in any way between parents and children, and BOTH sides of that equation naturally do care - and OUGHT to care - about this bond.

So adoption and donor conception are similar. However, they are also very different in a way that makes donor conception a lot morally WORSE than adoption. Adoption is fundametally a good thing, because (and when) it is primarily focused on the CHILD. It is an instrument for fixing a problem. Where the natural parents cannot care for their child. The child was not originally conceived in order to be given up, but once it is born, its natural parents cannot care for it. Adoption offers that child a life outside of an orphanage. it gives that child love where that child would otherwise NOT get love.

On the other hand, donor conception INTENTIONALLY creates a child that will be robbed of one or more biological parents. The biological parents often would be perfectly capable of caring for that child, but they arbitrarily decide that this child won't be "theirs" - they make it a "gift" to infertile strangers. The child has no choice in the matter. In effect, this child is given up for adoption even BEFORE it is conceived. It is robbed of its biological parents without any necessity. The focus is clearly not on the child but on the desires of the parents.

This is why I do not share the view that some blogs seem to have (such as "Adoption Agencies Expoloit People"), that adoption is equally bad. However, it may well be true that young pregnant women are being expoited today and are being pressured into giving their children up for adoption in order to feed the humongous, hungry and wealthy baby trade. This is a great injustice. It is also very sad because it gives adoption a bad name. Adoption should always be a true last resort where the natural parents are truly unable to care for their child, and it should be as open as possible.

---------------------------------------
As further proof of the similarity of adoption and donor conception view this recent letter to the editor, printed in the New York Times:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
New York Times
February 20, 2007
They Are Linked by Their Genes (1 Letter)

To the Editor:

Re "Sperm Donor Father Ends His Anonymity" (news article, Feb. 14):

I was happy to read about Jeffrey Harrison, a sperm donor who had the
compassion, sense and ethics to write to the teenagers who share his
genes, and who were looking for him.

As an older adoptee, I understand the teenagers' desires to know whom
they resemble. This natural interest should be honored by changes to
policies governing assisted reproduction as well as adoption.

When I researched the origins of policies sealing adoption records,
which go back to the 1930s, I found that some adoption agencies
preferred keeping participants apart, despite their awareness that
adoptees would want to know about their birth parents.

Similarly, most sperm banks keep people like Mr. Harrison and his
children apart, rather than address the needs of the very people they
help conceive.

Janine Baer
El Cerrito, Calif., Feb. 14, 2007
The writer is a member of an adoptee rights organization.

Ryan Kramer - 6 1/2 years searching for a sibling or dad

2007-02-20T12:24:00.000-05:00

So Ryan Kramer has finally made a match, becoming the 2910th person on his own website, the Donor Sibling Registry, to make contact someone who is genetically related to him on his father's side: a sister 3 years younger than him and born on his own birthday. Wendy Kramer, his mother, posted this information on their yahoo list on Feb. 2nd.

Incredible. So much time and effort searching for biological connections. But I thought biology didn't matter? I thought all that mattered was love? And surely, Ryan has lots of love from his wonderful mother.

Question for Wendy and all other parents of donor conceived children: How could you do this to your child in the first place?

The Donor Sibling Registry has as its motto "Redefining Family." As hip, progressive and neat as that sounds, it's not what they are doing. What they are doing in actuality is "Picking Up The Pieces, Scrounging for Any Remains of Real Family." Hoping against the odds to find real siblings or even, on a super long shot, real fathers. Yes - reality does not offer a catchy and trendy motto.

Jesus the donor conceived child

2007-02-20T12:23:00.000-05:00

For any of you who are believers out there, this could be an interesting thought. Jesus was also, in a sense, a donor conceived child. His biological parents were Mary and God Himself, as he was conceived by God in the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was conceived with the INTENTION of being raised by on earth by Joseph, his "social" father.

Notice that Jesus clearly shows us that "natural" parents matter. He never forgot about his "natural" father, and he called God "Father." We don't know what he called Joseph, and perhaps he also called Joseph "father". However, we do know that Jesus always felt a very deep connection to his real father in Heaven. In fact, this is the connection that mattered most in his life, and it is the connection that brought mankind salvation.

Dealing with a Brave New World

2007-02-20T12:11:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it can be demoralizing. Reading the posts on the Donor Sibling Registry can be quite overwhelming to the point of depression. There are so many people out there using donor sperm and eggs, and they all seem to think it's a wonderful thing. They all go on and on about their adorable, cute and cuddly toddlers with perfect features (like purebred pets). the baby trade is truly an enormous industry already, and thousands of children are already paying for it, but no one cares and no one seems to even NOTICE - especially not the parents, social OR genetic. (see ex. photos and story here).

How can people be searching for genetic siblings for their children and yet seem completely unphased and in favor of donor conception? It's like it's fashionable now to use donor sperm. These people seem not to even want to meet the father - they just want contact with other families who have children fathered by the same man (whom they don't want in their lives directly). They form support groups and go on picnic outings, and compare their children and marvel at how they look and act alike. They seem to think this is all acceptable and cool. It's PERVERSE!!!

One woman recently wrote on the registry about finding 20 half-siblings through the registry, and she knows of 28 half-siblings in total (she even met two accidentally in her local playground) - this incldues 3 children that the sperm donor is raising as his own, having relinquished responsibility for the other 25. The woman who wrote calls this phenomenon "Big Love." She seems quite thrilled about it all, and discusses how 8 of the families got together in a zoo, had lunch and traded photos of their babies, marvelling at the biological similarities between them. How cute.

Not!!! I am disgusted by it all. What I see here is 25 children robbed of their biological father (who is probably quite a man, since so many families wanted him as a donor!). And not just their father: their real grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins, and whole extended family. If they'd had a choice, would they really have chosen to have nothing to do with their father and that entire side of their family? These cute and cuddly babies will have children one day, and these children have also been robbed of their genetic heritage - all the way down the line to grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

What good does it do these children to have contact with their 25 half-siblings? How do they know how many others are out there? They are at the mercy of their parents and of chance. They don't know when they could fall in love with an unknown half-sibling. They don't know when their own children could fall in love with their uncles, aunts or cousins.

No, what these infertile couples are doing is not okay. And if they think it's so okay to have donor conceived children because biology doesn't matter, then what are they doing searching for bioligically related siblings on the Donor Sibling Registry? How hypocritical. Their own actions betray them and expose the giant lie at the center of their convoluted justifications.

Noteworthy conference in British Columbia - May 2007

2007-02-20T08:49:00.000-05:00

It looks like an excellent conference will be taking place in Nanaimo, British Columbia this May, called "Nobody's Child, Everybody's Children: An International Conference on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies". (By the way, B.C. is above Washington State, for you Americans :-) It should be well worth your travel pennies if you can afford it. I would absolutely love to go to this conference but alas, I just don't have the funds at the moment. I'm going to monitor their website and hope to acquire as much information as possible about what took place at the conference.

The main distinguishing feature of this conference is that it will feature the voices of those who are AGAINST repro tech, as well as those who are for it. It will thus allow for a real, balanced debate. Olivia Pratten will be there - the daughter of a sperm donor whom I featured on an earlier blog entry. her mother Shirley Pratten will also be speaking. By the way, they are looking for more voices of donor conceived offspring for a panel discussion, so if you would like to go, let Olivia know: opratten@mailup.net

Another person who will be speaking is Dr. Jeffrey Nisker, the man who gained fame here in Canada as a pioneer of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). As a doctor at the University of Western Ontario, he was the first person in Canada to offer this procedure, which involves testing IVF embryos for various traits (usually genetic or chromosomal abnormalities) and then choosing the "best" ones to implant. However, Dr. Nisker became disillusioned with the procedure and stopped doing it altogether, because the majority of his customers wanted to use PGD for sex selection, not for a serious medical reason.

Another speaker will be Elizabeth Marquardt, who recently finished the excellent report "The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs". Also read an article by her here: "My Daddy's Name is Donor".

I've made a "poster" for the conference at the top left. Unfortunately the pic is not "click-able" as I don't know how to do that. If anyone does, please let me know. I've put the URL underneath so you can paste and copy.

Babies are the new slaves

2007-02-15T12:51:00.000-05:00

In talking about the growing practice of using poor women in India as commercial surrogates, where these women are inseminated with sperm from some wealthy Westerner, bear the baby and ship it off to the Western infertile couple after it is born, Dr. John F. Kilner recently got it right:

Human beings ought not to be bought and sold in this way, any more than they should be bought and sold in slavery. That the purchaser is nice and plans to treat the one purchased well does not justify purchasing a slave. Turning human beings into things to be bought is inherently demeaning, as many philosophical outlooks and political systems generally affirm, not to mention various religions including the Christian faith.

It seems like the light is dawning. At least some people are waking up to the new slavery in our midst, a slavery where the slaves are our very own children. We sell them for a price. We buy them for a price. Sure, we buy them in order to love them, but what's the difference? The crucial problem is that they had no choice in the matter. What if they didn't want to be raised by strangers? What if they wanted their real mommy and daddy? No one cares, and apparently neither should they. They should be happy because after all, they have LOVE, right?

Read the article about Indian surrogates here.

Sex selection - why not?

2007-02-15T12:31:00.000-05:00

A Feb. 6th article in the NY Times discusses the ethics of sex selection. It turns out that people have a hard time arguing against it given all the other things that are already allowed. Thus, scholarly articles are written today in serious academic journals, concluding that "there is simply no moral justification for prohibiting parents from using sex selection technology to balance their families. "

Also thus, Dr. Jeffrey M. Steinberg, from Encino, Calif., who runs three clinics and will soon be opening a fourth in Manhattan, says nonchalantly:

''Reproductive choice, as far as I'm concerned, is a very personal issue,'' Dr. Steinberg said. ''If it's not going to hurt anyone, we go ahead and give them what they want.''

Right. There's only one little problem with this view of things, which is used to justify basically EVERYTHING that happens in repro tech. That little problem is that when they say "anyone," they forget to include the MOST IMPORTANT PERSON in the equation: the CHILD.

They intentionally leave out the child, because it would screw up their equation. If they included the child they would realize that the child IS being hurt. It's being hurt because it is being treated like a commercial product: some want a blue baby, some want a pink baby. It's all about parental satisfaction.

The child is also being hurt because often, it pays for sex-selection with its life: in IVF, one lucky girl or boy will get selected, and the rest get dumped in the garbage. So much for not hurting "anyone." What they really mean is "anyone who counts," because before a baby is officially "wanted," it means nothing to anyone, and no one seems to care if it gets hurt.

Questions every "intended parent" should answer before they go through with assisted reproduction

2007-02-14T17:48:00.000-05:00

A traditional surrogate mother wrote these painful questions to the "intended" parents of her now three-year old son Richie, whom she rarely sees:

Why did you do this to me?
How could you take someones baby?
Did you know it hurt?
Did you know it hurt so deeply that it stopped my life as it was that day?
Do you care?
Do you love that boy like I do?
Does he feel like he's yours?
Do you love him like your own?
I miss him.
Was it all worth it to you?
How could you do this to him?
Do you wonder how he will feel when he's grown?
Do you think he will hate me?
Do you think he will understand?
Do you think he will blame me?
Will he look for me some day?
Will you be angry if he finds me?
Will you keep him from me?
Do you want him to know me?
Do you want him to love me?
Why does our relationship not matter?
Am I the only one to blame?
Are you guilt-ridden as well?
Can you feel me?
When you look at him, who do you see?
Do you see me?
Do.. you know.. who I am?
Do you realize... what I've done for you?
...What I've given up for you?
...How much I wish things could change?
Will he call me mom?

These questions say it all. Stop the awful baby trade, which has already produced so much human suffering! Every time I even think about surrogacy, I get sick to my stomach. It's unbelievable that such a practice is legal in our supposedly enlightened society. We allow people to exploit women and dupe them into manufacturing and giving up their very own babies. We fool them into thinking they are doing a wonderful deed for a poor infertile couple - and in the process we rip out their heart and give them a heartache that never goes away. It's barbaric. It's like dog breeding. It's too much to believe.

They may not care as little children, but eventually they will

2007-02-10T22:41:00.000-05:00

This is a part of what Damian Adams wrote on his own blog on January 14, 2007:

The point is that as a juvenile you are too busy being a child to be concerned with identity issues and family relations. These don't surface until teenage years and in some instances not until adulthood. For me personally it did not change until I was 28 and had children of my own. Until that time I was a supporter of donor anonymity and also reasonably proud of myorigins. Now it is completely the opposite. Through my own childrens eyes I have been able to recognise the unbreakable bond that flesh and blood gives us. No matter what may ever happen between my wife and myself, or whatever mayhappen to me, I will always be my children's father. Nothing can ever change that. As soon as I thought about how it would break my heart that my children might ever grow up not knowing who I am, was I able to relate that to my own situation of being donor conceived. I was able to fully understand how the severance of my biological connection with my father had deprived me of family relations, it has left me with only knowing half of who I am, and has given me a different family name than the one I otherwise should have. It has also deprived me of a family heritage and family health history. I cannot answer health surveys or questions from doctors acurrately which can adversely affect my health. I was also unable to answer all of the questions in our recent national census.

Of course, prospective DI parents will probably not be deterred. The human mind has an amazing ability to ignore evidence to the contrary of what it wants to believe. They want to believe that they're not doing anything wrong and that their children will be just fine because biology doesn't matter after all (except when it does - to them). So they're able to rationalize their way out of the most obvious slap-in-the-face truth. Which is why we need the STATE to disallow this kind of behavior. Not just anonymous donation, but gamete donation in general, should be made illegal. It is wrong because it robs children of half of their biological heritage, and that is utterly selfish and incredibly immoral. It needs to be ILLEGAL, because relying on the good will of those who are desparately trying to have children is very likely to be insufficient.

Elizabeth, an aching donor child

2007-02-08T21:31:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Michael Linden, I found a blog today that absolutely blew me away. It is at: http://frabjousdays.blogspot.com/

Michael Linden has reproduced one of her blog entries. You HAVE to read the whole thing. I won't repeat the whole entry here as it is long but ABSOLUTELY worth reading. Here is only a little part of what Michael reproduced on his blog. These are the words of Elizabeth:

I am passionately opposed to donor conception, because it deprives children of a basic human right: to know, and be brought up by, their mother and father. It is completely different from adoption, because in that case the child already exists and needs to be cared for. Donor conception exists for the convenience of people who want to be parents. Wanting a baby is a natural desire, but is not to be achieved by unethical means. Why can't infertile people adopt a baby? 'Because it wouldn't be ours.' Why do they privilege the genetic link on the one hand and deny it on the other?

YESSSS!!!! Thank you so much Elizabeth, for courageously saying the truth. Keep it up!!

The New Eugenics: the California Cryobank

2007-02-08T19:45:00.000-05:00

The California Cryobank is an institution in the new eugenics, the propagation of the baby trade, very similar in fact to the slave trade of old. Get the baby you desire, with the characteristics you desire. The first to be auctioned off are the men who donate the sperm to make the baby. Not just every man will do.

Today, buyers don't have to stand on the dock and examine their muscles and teeth of the various people offered for sale. Instead, they can examine all of these people on their computers from the privacy of their own homes. In fact, the Cryobank does the first round for them:

Today the California Cryobank—probably the world's premier sperm bank—tests for a dozen genetic disorders and for almost as many infectious diseases. Donors must complete a 38-page, three-generation medical history, and submit to months of blood testing. The cryobank accepts only college graduates or students enrolled in a four-year program. (The cryobank's offices are in Westwood, Palo Alto, and Cambridge, Mass., meaning that most of its donors hail from USC, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard, and MIT.) And donors must stand at least 5 feet 9 inches tall. By the time it weeds out the sickly, the short, and the dim, the California Cryobank accepts only 3 percent to 5 percent of applicants.

The cryobank barrages customers with choices. A recent catalog listed more than 170 men of every race, national origin, and appearance. A client can buy the entire long medical history (written in the donor's own hand, so the client can judge handwriting). Some donors make audiotapes that clients listen to.

...The California Cryobank supplies tall collegians because that is what women want. (The ideal donor, he says: 6 feet tall, college degree, brown eyes, blond hair, and dimples.)

And who is out there seeking to buy the genes of these wonderful men?

Rothman estimates that 40 percent of his clients are single women or lesbians.

YES They KNOW Even If You Don't Tell Them

2007-02-08T19:37:00.000-05:00

A common experience among the children of sperm donors is that they somehow KNOW it even if you don't tell them. Which just shows that they are NOT growing up in an absolutely normal conditions, despite their exterior happiness and adjustedness. They have always felt something was off, and from everything I've read, they are usually not surprised to find out the truth. Here is Plotz reaveling what he found in his own research into what happened once parents told their children the truth:

Their kids were generally not surprised, they report: Some kids told their moms that they always felt something was off.

And:

Gage says he wasn't very surprised when his mom broke the news: "I have always noticed differences between my dad and me. … His personality is nothing like mine." Many mothers said their kids felt "relief" when they learned dad was not dad. As Jacob's mom put it, "He always knew but he didn't know."

Oonce they are told, the children tend to feel the following:

They find themselves with children who no longer know exactly who they are and no longer have a complete family. The mothers don't have much to tell them.

So now, these mothers are interested (finally) in helping their children re-establish their identity and learn about their donor fathers:

Some mothers with a single child hope to find genetic siblings, perhaps to build a new kind of family. And one divorced mother says she dreams about meeting her donor, maybe falling in love, and having him become, at long last, the father to his own children: "Wouldn't that be a story and a half?"

Good luck. That's the kind of thing that's supposed to happen BEFORE you have someone's child!

What happens to the "social" fathers?

2007-02-08T19:22:00.000-05:00

While many would have us believe that the relationship between donor sperm children and their "social" fathers is hunkey-dorey, the reality is often quite different. Here is an excerpt from Plotz on this subject:

The mothers seem ferociously close to their children but, with a couple of exceptions, the "social" fathers seem distant. In the divorced families, the mothers have assumed essentially all parenting responsibility. Three divorcees uttered almost exactly the same sentence to me: "My husband is not emotionally involved with the children." Even in most of the intact families, the mother dominates the relationship with the child. Ruby notes that her son has always called his father by his first name, never "Dad."

The mothers ignore—perhaps intentionally—a painful question: Is it the lack of genetic connection that chills the father-kid relationships? You can see why the mothers don't want to address this: If genetic distance causes the chill, then the mothers might feel responsible, because they chose the sperm bank. The moms tend to attribute the fathers' distance to temperament, to their inherent emotional unavailability.

But I suspect sociobiology matters enormously here. The mother has a genetic connection to her child. The father has none. The father also knows that his wife chose a man who is supposed to be smarter, healthier, and more physically gifted than him to father their child. It's easy to see how that could squash his paternal self-esteem and alienate him from his kids. And the artifice of pretending a child is your own flesh and blood must be wearing. ...

And get this, regarding why some moms told their kids they were the children of sperm donors:

Several moms say they told because they wanted to encourage their kids not to be like their fathers. One mother, for example, revealed her son's origin to him two weeks ago, after he told her he wanted to attend professional wrestling school instead of college. "I told him so that he would know that he is better than that, that his genes are better than his father's," says "Sarah."

(This case is especially awkward for another reason. Sarah, like another mom I talked to, told her son he is Nobel sperm-bank offspring, but did not tell the father that the son knows. In other words, the son knows his father is not his genetic father, but the father doesn't know that his son knows.)

Oh what tangled webs we weave. Of course, there's always ONE sure loser in these games: the child.

The Responsibility is With the Mother

2007-02-08T19:17:00.000-05:00

It seems that often, the people who are most responsible for stealing a biological parent from their children's lives are the very ones who are supposed to be most loving and closest to them: their mothers. How very tragic. From the stuff I have read, also confirmed below by Plotz's research into the Nobel Sperm Bank, it is often the mothers that drive the engine that leads to donor insemination. Their biological "need" to have children, their desparate and yet self-centered hunger for children, is what often precipitates these travesties. Plotz writes:

The other defining quality of these repository families is that they are hugely matriarchal. All of the mothers I spoke to went to the repository because they wanted to. The husbands were reluctant or ambivalent. (Several had grown-up kids already and didn't want more.) "He had nothing to do with it," says "Joan," a California mother.

A "Practicing Roman Catholic" Donor Sperm Recipient

2007-02-08T18:34:00.000-05:00

One of the women who accepted donor sperm from the genius clinic describes herself as a practicing Roman Catholic. She writes to Plotz:

As a practicing Roman Catholic (yes, I still am) I was terribly torn between my desire/need to create a family and the religious/ethical dilemma that this presented. I prayed for guidance. We, of course, considered adoption and actually started down that path but found ourselves emotionally and intellectually involved in Dr. Graham's quest.

How this woman convinces herself that she is a practicing Roman Catholic is beyond me. Going to church on Sunday doesn't make you a Catholic! It so turns out that the Catholic Church could not be more OPPOSED to the kind of family-breaking that this woman has done here through donor insemination.

The woman goes on to explain how "all you need is love," and her children are thus even LUCKIER than most children:

Yes, our children and I think the other Repository children have had every possible opportunity in life beginning with the gifts of being wanted and loved. Our children are as much a gift from God as any other children—not the "cold, utilitarian approach toward children" you described in your article.

This supposed "practicing Roman Catholic" actually delights in the genetic heritage of her children:

They are considered to be the best students in their small, parochial school and test right off the top of the charts on academics as well as music (both play instruments) and art. This is also not a surprise given that they receive lots of individual attention from dedicated teachers. I can't determine where the good genetics stop and the good environment begins—I am not sure that I need and/or want to.

Well, of course the children are happy. Especially since they believe their daddy is really their daddy. It turns out that this supposedly practicing Roman Catholic keeps the dark secret hidden from her innocents. They have no idea that they were conceived by donor sperm. What is your problem, lady? How self-centered! I have no doubt however that in time, the truth will come right out. And then...watch out!

One thing that my husband and I have not come to terms with is telling our children about their biological father and the role of the Repository. We have said nothing but we have kept the red capped vial that conceived each of them and the correspondence from Red #46. Within the family only their maternal grandparents know. Once we discussed when would be an appropriate age for disclosure and we couldn't agree—I don't want to ever tell them ...

On the Genius Sperm Bank Donor Fathers

2007-02-08T18:25:00.000-05:00

One of the men who donated sperm for the Genius Sperm Bank was a businessman, whom Plotz describes as "an extremely successful businessman, someone who has launched several companies, including one that's almost a household name. He's rich, accomplished, athletic, and driven. He also has no children of his own." This impressive man explained to Plotz why he donated his sperm. He says:

The repository was perfect for me because I was not responsible for the kids. I really did not care. That is why I did not want to know how many kids I had.
I have not had children. I have never been interested in children. I acknowledged it and decided not to have the child suffer my disinterest. I left home very, very young. I left home after high school and never went back.
So you never think of your repository kids?
No, I guess I don't think of them. They are so anonymous to me—I guess because I have never been really interested in children anyway. I never followed up that much.
Are you afraid that one of the kids might manage to find you?
I would expect that they destroyed any documentation on that. But I might be thrilled. It would be nice to have it all turn out well. I would probably get immediately emotionally involved. It might be a bit of a kick.

Wow. So donating sperm was basically a way for this man to pass on his genes and have children without having to take care of them or be responsible. And then if they turned out well, it would be nice to meet them someday, he just "might" get a kick out of that.

Yeah, that's a real role model. Why are we fuelling this kind of parental irresponsibility and narcissism on a grand scale?

Another one of the donor fathers, Donor White, provides a different reason for having donated. According to Plotz, "He wrote that he and his wife had never been able to have their own children. He also wrote that he couldn't shake the memory of his own great-grandfather, who had fathered his only child just before going off to fight and die in the Civil War." Donor white has at least 13 children thorugh the sperm bank. He says:

The indirect success … is not like having your own children, of course, and I will likely never be able to see any of them in person, because I would be 75 years old before they become adults. Moreover, many of these children will likely never know that their adopted fathers are not their biological fathers. Still, I know these children are out there somewhere, and they are thought about often. I have seen very pleasing photographs of several of them, with their parents' permission, and have been able to form my own mental images of others while running on the beach in the quietness of the early morning. This is a rather poor substitute for having one's own children, but it does provide a sense of continuity that was not present before. In my view, a person's genes really belong to all of those many ancestors from whence they came, and we are only allowed to borrow and make use of them during our lifetimes. I have the satisfaction, then, of having been able, in an anonymous way, to connect the past with the future in a continuous line like a curve on a graph.

Plotz also writes about the sperm bank fathers that:

Most of the donors have something unusual in common: an unsteady personal life. The vast majority of men their age are married and the vast majority have children. Yet only two of the seven, I believe, are married. Only three have their own (non-repository) children. Only one of the fathers is married to the mother of his child. (At least two men had relationships that foundered in part because the woman desired children. "She wanted to have children and I did not. But sometimes I would be in the next bedroom donating sperm. She did not try to stop me, but she was not happy about it," says Average Guy.)

...Most of the Slate Seven remember their "work" for Graham with satisfaction. A couple are purely happy about it. They think fondly about any genetic kids. A couple are pleased with the venture in an intellectual way: They don't think much about any kids but praise Graham's goals. A couple feel slightly embarrassed by what they did. None thinks of himself as a father to the bank children. Even those who believe most strongly in heritability insist that fathers are made by nurture, not nature. Even so, all of them expressed some enthusiasm at the prospect of meeting their biological offspring, though they worry about tampering with the kids' families.
The Average Guy has the most perverse and complicated feelings about being a donor. He has kept obsessive track of his repository kids. He took notes every time a repository staffer contacted him to report a birth, allowing him to figure out his offspring's birthdays and sexes. He corresponded—anonymously through the repository—with one mother who used his sperm. Though the repository eliminated identifying information from the letters, he was able to figure out the first names and professions of her and her husband, as well as where they lived. (How did he find their hometown? you ask. The parents sent him a studio photo of their daughter: He searched photo studio catalogs to find the studio that used the logo embossed on the frame. Voilà! It was one in … I'm not telling. He showed me the photo: The girl's resemblance to Average Guy is astonishing.)
But despite his obsessive record keeping, Average Guy says he is often ashamed of what he has done. He is chagrined that he has selfishly avoided responsibility for raising kids. And he feels that spawning more than a dozen rugrats contradicts his own environmentalist ethos. "I am concerned about overpopulation and America's destructive appetite for resources. I have contributed to this problem in a big way by creating so many new consumers."
In one final way, the donors seem very much alike. All sound blue when they discuss their genetic offspring. They seem sad that they have kids they can't ever meet, can't watch grow up, can't ever help. They understand the melancholy reality of sperm donation. It's fatherhood without the responsibility, but also fatherhood without the delight.

Doron Blake, the Ramm children, and other Genius Designer Babies

2007-02-07T17:35:00.000-05:00

Doron Blake, now 23 years old, is a designer baby. He is one of the people featured in the German film "Frozen Angels, which is supposed to be excellent but which I haven't seen. I want to get my hands on this film! It can be ordered here. Has anyone out there seen it who could comment on this blog? I'd love to know what people thought of it.

Doron is a bit of a star. He is the child of a an acknowledged genius (although not a Nobel Prize winner). The anonymous donor sperm that created him came from the notorious "Nobel Prize Sperm Bank" (officially called "Repository for Germinal Choice”) where the eugenic-minded California nutcase inventor Robert Graham recruited various scientific geniuses to donate sperm in order to improve the human race by making superbabies. Despite the notorious reputation Graham did not end up using Nobel Prize winners, as he decided they were too old for their sperm to be effective. Read a book on this subject by David Plotz, called "The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank" (2005), or read his online summary of the book in the making here. Some 240 children were eventually born using this sperm, but the majority are anonymous, although Plotz talks about several of the children in his online summary of the book.

One of the few known children from this sperm bank is Doron, who was the poster baby for this project to better the human race. His mother ("a middle-aged hippie and New Age psychologist living in Los Angeles") had him as she was nearing 40 and didn't have a suitable male partner in sight. Why should that stop a woman from having children these days? Rather than accepting her fate, she went to a clinic where she could "choose" the kind of baby she wanted - indeed, he would be the child of a genius!

Doron has an IQ of 180 and an extreme talent for music, as his mother had wanted. His mother has intentionally paraded him before the media since his wee years as a walking ad for what sperm donation can do, with all his accomplisments neatly catalogued for the public. When he was little he was on the cover of Mother Jones. He says of himself: "I was [Robert Graham's] emblem. I was the boy with the high IQ who was not screwed up. I was his ideal result."

His mother made him the center of her universe, induged and overindulged him. She even breast-fed him until 6 years old! Doron excelled in school, became a math prodigy, "qualified for a Los Angeles school for the gifted then won a full scholarship to Phillips Exeter in New Hampshire, one of the nation's best high schools."

But Doron was not automatically happy because of his privileged genetic parentage. In fact, quite the opposite. He says:

"Most of being a prodigy was negative. People have always been saying 'prodigy sperm child' all my life. But I am not that wonderful at anything. You feel a lot of pressure because you don't want to let people down, or you don't really feel free to be what you want to be.
"I don't feel safe with people I don't know, and I don't feel very confident with others. That may be the effect of having things expected of me."

So, Doron has rebelled against this genetic determination, and against the parental and societal expectations that he must have felt all his young life. Doron is going to Reed College, not a top school by any means (the only school he applied to), and majoring in comparative religions, not a hard science like his donor father. His ambition is to be a high school teacher. "He has rejected studying elite subjects at elite universities. Instead, Doron is an introverted student of psychology who plays three different instruments but has few social contacts. Doron prefers to investigate the universe alone—and to find his place in it on his own terms."

Indeed, Doron has learned a very important lesson about human worth the hard way. He says:

“It was a screwed-up idea, making genius people. The fact that I have a huge IQ does not make me a person who is good or happy. People come expecting me to have all these achievements under my belt, and I don’t. I have not done anything that special. I don’t think being intelligent is what makes a person. What makes a person is being raised in a loving family with loving parents who don’t pressure them. If I was born with an IQ of 100 and not 180, I could do just as much in my life. The thing I like best about myself is not that I’m smart but that I care about people and try to make other people’s lives better. I don’t think you can breed for good people.”

See the full article.

By the way, it's interesting to see what happened as Plotz wrote the book I mentioned above. According to the Times Literary Supplement:

Plotz soon found himself acting as detective and matchmaker, tracking down donors and brokering meetings with their offspring. These stories are the moral and emotional heart of the book. “Donor White” fathered nineteen children, but became deeply attached to the one whose mother sought him out. His reaction is the reason that sperm banks forbid such meetings; “donor offspring” become real children who laugh, play, have personalities, give you trouble, and make you proud. In this case, the father needed the daughter more than she needed him; she was a contented child who had no emotional void to fill.

Other children had a hole in their souls, and longed to find a “real” father unlike their distant stepdads, or to have any father at all. Many were disappointed. One young man, expecting to find a loving, genius dad, got Jeremy - “an obscure doctor”, Plotz writes, “whose notable accomplishment in life was leaving a wake of ex-wives and forgotten children”. Plotz also interviewed the faintly creepy son of a Nobelist who became a donor - the son, not the dad.

Doron doesn't seem to be very curious about his father, but he says that having a father would have helped him understand men. "I am not a masculine, macho guy. Maybe it would have been good to have more experience relating to men." Of course, Doron now knows who his father is. He says the media showed him an article about his father a while back (name John, a computer scientist of some sort) and he said he would not object to meeting him, but the meeting never happened.

Courtney Ramm, who is 17 (maybe 18 by now), is another one of the Nobel Sperm Bank children. She is a ballerina in New York and in 2006 she graduated from the Laguardia High School of Music and Art. She also has a sister and a brother and both are sperm donor babies. Her sister Leandra is a talented and accomplished singer. Her brother Logan (sperm donor Fuchsia) has autism. Read about their family here, in a brochure featuring her family (pictured below left).

Where are the rest of the Nobel Sperm Bank babies now? Plotz writes the following:

There are no Nobels and no criminals. All of them seem smart and engaged in the world. Most write a good e-mail and talk a good game on the phone. Two are quite prominent. The rising young businessman became a fabulously successful middle-aged businessman. The emerging political activist has become a semi-famous, sometimes controversial political activist. The two promising graduate students are now junior professors at decent universities. One of the prodigies has retired from a successful career in the intelligence trade to do consulting and muck about with high I.Q. organizations (groups like Mensa, but higher I.Q.'s required). The Average Guy has returned to grad school, where he's finishing a degree in environmental policy. Most of the Slate Seven remain connected to hard science, which would please Graham, who valued science and scorned just about everything else.
The second child prodigy, who has abandoned hard science, has transformed most radically. He donated in the early '80s when he was a math whiz. Today he writes, "In many respects I feel I am a failure. The closest I have come to conventional success was when I made my living writing term papers for rich kids at Columbia, NYU, etc." But I don't think he really feels like a failure: He has just discarded the notion that intelligence, especially analytical intelligence, is an important measure of life. He has abandoned math and academia to become an artisan. "I have gone from being an intellectual whore to … I dunno what … I will never win a Nobel Prize, but I don't care. I will never make any 'great' contribution to science. No matter. I have come to terms with myself and who I am. This is the best part of growing old."
Some other donors, too, seem to be grappling with the burden of expectation. Several seem conscious of how well they have done in their profession versus how well a "genius donor" ought to have done.

Sadly, at least some of these donor sperm children seem quite aware of their status as consumerized products, made-to-order for a certain feature: intelligence. One 14-year-old donor sperm baby writes of himself:

"the thought that I was genetically engineered to be intelligent might have provided further impetus to my drive to improve my grades, but I do not believe it was the main factor."

Moms by choice, but not single by choice

2007-01-31T19:54:00.000-05:00

There is a new fashion today in the repro tech world: single women who have decided to go ahead and have children despite their inability to find a suitable male mate, are now flocking to donor sperm and calling themselves "single moms by choice." I guess this is supposed to make them seem empowered and in control, as if their situation is really a "lifestyle choice". I guess it's even supposed to make them sound cool - they got what they wanted and they didn't need - or seemingly even want - a man.

The truth is though, that they aren't really single moms by choice. They did choose to be moms, but they aren't single by choice. They are, sadly, single because they have not found a life partner, despite longing for this.

A new article just came out about them here: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/01/17/0118bctxsperm.html

In the article, one of these moms says: "I searched for Mr. Right, but could never find him, and I really wanted a child," she said. "I have never been the one to do things conventionally. So, while it was frightening, it was a no-brainer. I was going to have a child, and this seemed the best way."

Another one of the women says that her path was similar: "For most women, having a child on their own is plan B," "In high school I dreamed of getting married and having kids," she said. "And I have not abandoned that idea. I have the rest of my life to find a husband, but I do not have the rest of my life to have a baby."

Children hurt when their biological parents are missing from their lives

2007-01-31T19:45:00.000-05:00

In a recent article in The Guardian, a woman who discovered she was donor-conceived at 50 years of age says:

"A lot of people think they have a right to have children, regardless of whether the child has any information about their father. It's within this context that you still get people fighting for anonymity among sperm donors which, in light of experiences like mine, seems incredible."

Also from the article:

"This is often coupled with an unresolved sense of loss. People say you can't miss what you haven't had, but no group of people reveal this as being more misguided than people who long to know their paternity. "If it hasn't been worked through - possibly because there is still the hope of one day finding the father - this unmourned loss can occupy a huge inner space of a person's psyche," says Trench.
In many situations, people have not lacked a father figure in their lives, albeit not a genetic dad. Indeed, few people wanting to know more about their biological fathers say they are seeking a paternal relationship. They simply want some questions answered."

Read the full article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,1994313,00.html

Looking for sperm on Craigslist

2007-01-27T23:29:00.000-05:00

A lady recently advertised on Craigslist in Austin, Texas, looking for a sperm donor. This is a part of what she said:

Attention Austin gentlemen! My name is “Katherine” and I am a 38 year old single woman. I have been on a 15 year search of a husband to no avail. I was eager to marry so I could start a family; however, have recently set the search of marriage aside for a greater one, the one of becoming a mother.
Where you fit in: Two words: Baby lust. I desperately want to have a biological child. Therefore, I am in search of a sperm donor...the old fashioned way! I am willing to pay you $2000 for the first time encounter, and $500 for each additional encounter, in the event the previous one(s) did not take. This encounter would be dependent on my monthly ovulation cycle.

(click here to read the full post on a bioethics blog).

Well, what can I say. Anything is for sale these days.

Struggling with Infertility

2007-01-26T13:04:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Oprah had a show on 30-somethings in America, and one of her guests was Jenna, a 34-year-old woman who is struggling with infertility. Click here to read her story on the Oprah website and to view photos. This woman has tried everything, including IVF. She has spent over $40,000. Nothing has been successful so far, but she is not yet giving up.

In watching her story, it struck me how she had such a deep sense of entitlement to children. She already had a big house, she already drove an SUV in preparation for having children. She seemed so single-mindedly determined that she would have children at any cost, because that's what she has decided she wants in life. It was all about her, her, her and what she is supposed to have, have, have.

Speaking as one who does not yet have any children, but who hopes to have them someday, I certainly understand the desire for children. However, there is something unhealthy about this desire taking over our lives to the extent where we are willing to do ANYTHING for it.

Olivia's presentation to Canadian Committee

2007-01-19T20:04:00.000-05:00

The following are excerpts from a presentation that Olivia Pratten, a donor-inseminated child, gave to Canada's Standing Committee on Health in 2001. At the time, Olivia was 19. She appeared before the Committee in an attempt to open up Canada's assisted reproduction laws, so that anonymous sperm donation would no longer be allowed. Unfortunately, the laws were not changed. Olivia said:

After all, an anonymous system violates our human rights, as stated in article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity”. Canada ratified this convention in 1991.

...To begin, the donor is not Dad to me. I have a Dad. However, the genetic tie that I share with my biological father cannot be minimized or made to disappear. I carry it with me. It is visible in who I am and what I will be. I have obviously inherited heavily from my mother's genes when it comes to colouring and appearance. Nonetheless, in terms of personality and interests, there is little I have in common with her and that side of the family—but I still love her.

For example, I've always had an uncanny sense of direction. No matter where I am, without a compass, I can always find where I want to go and I can point to where north is. Neither my mother nor anyone else in her family has this ability. It's little idiosyncrasies like these that are always on my mind.

Over the years, I've tried to create sort of a visual image of what the donor might look like. We come up with, well, she's tall and I'm short, so I think he must have been short. We also think he probably has big hands, because people tease me about having big man hands—and I have smelly feet.

It's things like these that I'm constantly thinking about, and I'm always left pondering, trying to put the pieces together of who this man was and how this relates to who I am today. If I could somehow know who he was, it would not alter the essence of who I am. I know that already, but it would alter the way that I look at myself. Everything I already know about myself would be put into a different context, and I believe my perception of things would be altered.

It's almost like putting on a pair of glasses because your vision is no longer 20/20. It's frustrating, because everyone else can see things in the real light, but those of us who were conceived through anonymous gametes are left trying to figure out what's going on. It's a continuing feeling of unfairness and exclusion.

As a bit of a personal story here, when I was in grade 5 we had to do a family tree and a report about where our ancestors came from. I remember the feeling of exclusion and sadness I felt when I watched my best friend, Skye, fill in her family tree all the way back to the 1600s, alongside the family story that her surname indicated they were merchants. When it came down to me to write out my family tree, I looked on in envy at hers. I couldn't bring myself to write down my Dad's family.

Little things like these throughout one's lifetime serve as a reminder of what I and other DI offspring don't have and probably never will have—for example, talking about genetics and heredity in a high school biology class, or walking by a genealogical section of a bookstore. Perhaps it's having a friend show you a piece of jewellery that has been passed down through her family for generations. It is these things that people who know their true genetic heritage take for granted and quite often don't even realize the significance of. DI offspring are left to ponder for themselves who these missing relatives are.

Sometimes when I'm in Vancouver I wonder whether I pass him on the street. When I meet someone who was a UBC student around the time I was conceived, I look him over and wonder, could he be my biological father? What I do know is that there is an undeniable piece missing that I'm always subconsciously trying to find. And why should I when other Canadian citizens do not think twice about their genetic puzzle? Most of them don't even realize or appreciate what they have.

To continue creating future offspring with an anonymous system, knowing these facts, is unacceptable and irresponsible. Moreover, to give offspring so-called euphemized non-identifying information feels like a slap in the face, and from my point of view, I'd call it taunting information. Basically the message is, we know who he is but we will not tell you. Imagine the humiliation of walking into a government office and having someone who does not know you tell you this. Many offspring feel that this information belongs to them, so why should they have to go to a complete stranger to justify, knowing that they have the key to the donor's identity? What a horrible feeling it would be knowing that you're close yet so far away from ever knowing who this man, your biological father, really was.

Non-identifying information, I believe, is a joke. It's like making a gourmet meal, then putting it in front of me, and then telling me I cannot eat it. Even if I had the opportunity to have non-identifying information, I can tell you that it would not be enough. It would be something, but the desire to know who this man was would still be there—and I still have no dignity, as I have no say in the matter. The control and decision-making is still in the hands of the infertile couple and the donor.

The most glaring example of this that I saw in the draft legislation was that the donor can consent to having the information destroyed. Personally, I find this quite disgusting. That information is not just his information, it's my information. I carry it with me. I carry it in my genes. It will affect my family. I believe giving him this power is not right; it's unacceptable.

Another thing, while referring to the draft legislation, I came to conclude that Health Canada has been leaning towards the creation of a dual system. This is when couples can decide if they want an anonymous donor or not, and donors can decide whether or not they want to be identified when the child comes of age.

I feel that to create a system of anonymity alongside one of openness is unconscionable. A class of marginalized citizens will be deliberately created—DI children without knowing their genetic origins alongside other DI children who do and more Canadians conceived traditionally. What shame and isolation the child created in anonymity will feel. We have to ask ourselves, why are we even thinking this is acceptable?

The feelings of unfairness and exclusion will be even more compounded in a situation like this as the child realizes that their parents had the opportunity to choose an identifiable donor, but instead chose the path of secrecy, shame, and deception. I can only begin to imagine the distress I would feel towards my parents if I knew they could have chosen a different route than anonymity. I know, however, this was not the case.

I would like to see a system where donors cannot donate unless they are willing to be identified if the child requests this when he or she comes of age at 18. When the child, who is now an autonomous adult with rights equal to those of every other Canadian, feels ready, he or she can go through a bureau or something of this sort to make contact with the donor. The donor enters the program knowing this before donating. After all, he entered into this voluntarily; as offspring, we never asked to be put into this situation.

And from my many discussions with DI offspring over the years and with others who are adopted, I can tell you that at the core we share the same issues and desires of wanting to connect with that lost parent. In this day and age, we recognize the need of adoptees to know their genetic heritage. I wonder why, then, in light of all the research in the area of adoption, an anonymous gamete system in any form would even be considered. I've yet to meet an offspring conceived anonymously who says, “Gee, that's just wonderful. I'm so glad I'll never have the opportunity to know.”

On the contrary, these people are some of the most passionate advocates for openness. When talking about this issue, I often hear the debate of right to reproductive choice thrown in by the medical profession; however, I never made the choice not to know who my biological father is. I find it infuriating that my choice of whether I want to meet the donor has been taken away from me. The point is not whether I want to meet him, it's that I have the choice to do so in a dignified manner.

...I argue it's better to have an accountable, slightly smaller system than a large, unregulated one—a system where the priority has been that the supply must meet the demand for the infertile couples at the cost of considering the needs of the resulting offspring, who have been treated like commodities in a baby factory.

As a society, I believe we must balance our compassion for the pain of the infertile with the consciousness of not manufacturing babies just to ease this pain without thinking of the effect on the lifespan of the resulting child.

...Bill Cordray, an adult DI offspring and a personal friend, described the experience of genetic bewilderment in better words than I could and I quote him here:

Who am I? That is a basic question that everybody asks, and most people form their identities seeing their mirror images in their own family, as well as by environmental influences and social attachments to people. A major key to everyone's identity is their genetic blueprint, which most people can read in the faces of their family and can see in the photographs and stories of their ancestors.

As people conceived through assisted reproductive technology, we share the same struggle for full identity as adoptees. Medical professionals rarely look beyond the microscopic view of zygotes, gametes, blastocytes, embryos, or the ultrasonic images of the foetuses to see the human face of the people they create. Their primary focus has been the pain suffered by infertility patients. They've not considered the need of the children, who are the central reason for their profession.

That's the end of the quote. At the end of the day for the doctor, it's just the job. These issues are a mere professional debate. But for the other DI offspring and myself, it's our life; it is we who have to live with the decisions made for us before we were born.

...I can ask each of you to put yourself in my shoes. Could you honestly say you would be satisfied not ever knowing who contributed to half of your identity?

Read Olivia's full presentation here.

Read more about Olivia here: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/observer/story.html?id=f0257a1a-b7d4-4872-a1b2-06747a933fd6

A donor conceived man experiences long-suppressed grief

2007-01-19T19:41:00.000-05:00

This is from the blog of Damian Adams, an Australian man who was conceived using donor sperm:

I used to feel grateful for my existence and even proud of being donor conceived. But now that my own children have opened my eyes, my mind and my heart to what was missing from my own life was I able to truly see what my origins had deprived me. Nothing can fix the sorrow I feel for my own loss and the loss experienced by other donor conceived children.

And in another place, Damian writes:

...The rights of the most vulnerable party, in this case the child, should always override those of the parents. In the instance of children, they have an inalienable right to know their biological father and mother. Yet many would be parents would like to believe they have a right to "have" children. I would strongly argue that no one has a right to have children. We are not some pet that you can bring home from a pet-shop and then "own". No one should use children to fulfill their own desires at the expense of the child. To be able to have children in your life is a privilege. Unfortunately it is not one that everyone can enjoy.

Another young woman mourns for her surrogate mother

2007-01-19T19:31:00.000-05:00

Still not convinced? Here is a recent post on the blog of Sarah, a 19-year-old woman who is the daughter of a surrogate, like Brian in a post below.

A Grief not allowed
I am very sad today, with a grief that is not talked about. It is not allowed. Because I had two loving parents. I am not granted asylum. I am not allowed reprieve. Well...what the fuck are you complainin' about ?? You got everything you wanted. You had so many presents at Christmas and your birthday that it was supposed to buy your happiness. You were supposed to forget about your mother. You had everything. Why would you want more? WE GAVE YOU EVERYTHING.

I had everything....everything but my mother. You just can't fix that. Sorry.

A biological father regrets losing his children by donating his sperm

2007-01-19T19:05:00.000-05:00

It's worth reading the incredible witness of an Australian father, Michael Linden, who learned the hard way. He is the biological father of Myfanwy Walker. They finally found each other after she searched for him for years. Michael writes:

Would anyone of you here ever give away or even sell your children?....

I did. And so have hundreds of other men in this supposedly civilized country of ours.

Since the mid-1970s something of the order of twenty to thirty thousand children have been born in Australia by means of donor insemination. The vast majority of these children do not know it, but for all of them there is a man somewhere with whom they share the most basic biological connection. These men are their fathers.

Whether they realized it or not, what these men were really doing when they gave away their sperm was giving away their unborn children. Indeed, this is the sole purpose of the practice of donor conception: it is not so much the provision of the means of fertility to the infertile but the exploitation of those who are fertile in order that they provide the infertile with the child that, as it is usually so plaintively phrased, they desire.

Yes, it is true: I never held my lost children in my arms when they were just born as I did with the three daughters of my first marriage.

...But this does not mean that I cannot feel cheated, and at times even angry that – even though I cannot deny my utter responsibility in choosing to donate – I may never get to meet those three remaining young women who are just as much my daughters as those I raised.

Just like some donor-conceived adults of my acquaintance, I am sometimes struck by a passing person in the street or elsewhere, by a fleeting resemblance, by a flash of recognition. And I wonder…

...I have been criticized – and even sometimes by they who are otherwise firm opponents of donor conception - for publicly affirming in the media that I am the real – by which of course I mean biological – father of my medically conceived children.

Most recently on a Four Corners episode dealing with donor conception my statement to that effect was dramatically counterpointed with the opinion of a social father. He was of course shocked that I should dare to reclaim fatherhood for myself in this way. But for me to have stated otherwise would have been to condone and further propagate the lie.

Please visit Michael's blog, from which this excerpt was taken.

Also read about the story of Michael and Myfanwy at the following links:
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2004_02_22/story_1035.asp

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020715/ai_n12629905

The Pain of the Children Speaks for Itself - Son of a Surrogate

2007-01-18T22:24:00.000-05:00

I just had to post this excerpt from the blog of Son of a Surrogate. This is who he is: "My name is Brian and I am the son of a traditional surrogate, a biological father, and an adoptive mother." His blog speaks for itself:

Then came the time last year that J's real mom had her second child. Bev was 35 or 36, somewhere around that. I have never seen the boy unravel quite like he did that day. After we returned from the hospital, Jason and i sat beside each other on the bed. I knew something was wrong because when J chews the inside of his mouth, something is bothering him. I just didn't know how deeply it went for him.

I innocently asked, "So J, whaddya think of Connor? Isn't he an absolute doll?" The dam burst, the levy broke and the floodgate blew apart at that moment. J, sobbing the hardest I have ever seen anyone do, flung himself across my lap, clutched my knees, and wept into my stoneblast Levis. "WHY DIDN'T SHE KEEP ME?! WHY DIDN'T SHE WANT ME?!" he wailed. Over and over he repeated these two things until the dam broke inside myself. I was taken back to the time when I first met my siblings and how badly that stung. Seeing the family photos, all happy and smiling, but I wasn't there. I was missing. I knew exactly how J felt. My mother didn't keep me either. My mother didn't want me either. No matter how much our other parents did, our real mothers did not.

I bent over and sobbed into J's tee shirt. 2 barely grown men transformed back into the raging, grieving infants taken from their mothers and replaced with substitute mothers. No matter how much love we were given, it wouldn't take away the pain of losing our 1st mothers. I felt a connection to J that superceded anything physical or mental. It was a spiritual connection with a grieving brother.

Something horrible happened to us at birth. We lost our mothers. They did not die, but they might as well have been dead because we lost them in the capacity of mother and to a tiny baby, that feels like death. They are all we ever knew and suddenly, they were gone.

How ignorant it is for us to think that babies don't feel or don't remember. Study after study comes out to reveal how aware we really are and how bonding begins before birth.

...Why is it that I get blasted for being the child of a surrogate and an adoptee? Because I am not grateful? Cuz I don't kiss the ass of surrogacy and adoption? Kiss the ass of the industry?

It must threaten you. I must threaten everything you are and everything you stand for to make you write some of those bitchy things to me. I must scare the piss out of you to get so damned defensive. It also hurts, because you care nothing for the feelings of the person these arrangements affects the most - the child.

If my mother was killed in a horrible accident on her way home from the hospital or if she perished in childbirth, I would get all permission to grieve I needed. When I expressed my rage against the forces or thing that killed my mother, you would all give me all the sympathy in the world. I would be allowed for me to grieve, be angry, to rage. Well my mother died as my mother when the forces that be took me away from her. However I am not allowed to grieve because that force was called surrogacy and those people who took me away were called Intended Parents. It's becoming like a sacred cow. Poor poor infertile couples. Ungrateful adoptees. Acquiring that chikd by any means available is far more important to what is actually DOES to the child.

It's bullshit. Pure garbage. Its disenfranchized grief and it is self-perpetuating. No wonder I just don't "get over it'.

So John and Paul were wrong and Aretha was right. Love isn't all you need. You need respect, too. And respect is something I never got. Neither did Jason. The first disrespect came when you took us from our mothers and you gave us a substitute. AS IF we had no feelings. AS IF we wouldn't notice.

Well, we did notice. We'll notice for the rest of our lives.

To read more by Son of a Surrogate, also click here. Here is some taste of what else he says:

How do you think we feel about being created specifically to be given away?...I don’t care why my parents or my mother did this. It looks to me like I was bought and sold....You can pretend these are not your children. You can say it is a gift or you donated your egg to the IM. But the fact is that someone has contracted you to make a child, give up your parental rights and hand over your flesh and blood child. I dont care if you think I am not your child, what about what I think!

...Lets look at this from our point of view. Here is our biological mother our flesh and blood the woman who would naturally be raising and loving us totally denying that we are her child. ...We’re your kids just as much as your own kids, but yet you only think of us as some sloughed off egg that you are giving to a substitute mother who no matter how much love she has just can’t be the same as you? ...How do you think that makes us kids feel? You may be able to deny us but we don’t want to deny who you are. That makes us feel very rejected. That leaves a hole in our hearts whether we admit to it or it manifests some other way like in depression or a fear of getting close to someone else.

...What makes us different than the children you love and raise? Because in your mind you have to think of us as somebody elses kid so that you can keep your sanity and take your compensation. What about our brothers and sisters, the kids you didn’t give away in exchange for money? What if we want to know them and they know us. You can tell them we aren’t their brothers and sisters, but they know the truth. We all know the truth.

...And what about all of the lies told to the kids and their families about who they are. What about all of the sperm and egg donor babies who will walk around looking at faces wondering who their biological parents are and if they could be Joe Schmoe walking down the street because he has the same jaw line. Is it fair to take away our identities? Would you like that done to you?

...Our biology is a part of us, it’s the very first part of us and you have no right to lie about it! Not to us, not to our family either. What you do isn’t all about you. That is so selfish. Its all about us, the kids of surrogacy.

... When I was 6 I asked my adoptive mother if she really was my mother. She loved me and I knew she did, but she never felt like my mother. She felt more like a loving nanny and I sensed this even being so young. She started to cry and I felt bad for upsetting her so I didn’t ask any more. But I always knew. Kids always know.

...I am mad at them both for not thinking about how I would feel about being taken away from my bio mother and family and having my biology separated like this. I am angry with my mother for denying me and treated me like nothing but an egg and a $8000 paycheck.

... Yes I am angry. Yes I feel cheated. Yes I feel that my parents and my mother did not take my feelings into consideration when they entered into this arrangement, but I feel that they are all good people just really misguided and did not stop to think of the ramifications. It’s a shame and it sucks for me. Hell it sucks for all of us. I don’t mean to come off that you (the surrogates and the intended parents) are bad people either. It looks like you are all good people with good intentions and a lot of love but all the good intentions and love in the world wont change the defenition of right and wrong. It won’t change how the kids feel.

... I don’t know what the solution to infertility is. I hope they can come up with a way for you to all carry your biological children. I just don’t feel that breaking apart a mother and child is the answer unless the mother will cause harm to the baby. Even in those cases, a mother should be able to take part in the child’s life someway and in a safe way. All I am asking you to do is to think long and hard about what you are doing. Consider everything including the way the kids might feel.

... My mother came back into my life a year ago but i had to beg and plead with my adoptive mother to let her do so. I just stood and stared at her for the longest time. It was so comforting to see someone who looks like me because I didn't look much like my father. I have her hair and eyes. I have her nose and smile. There was an increible sense of recognition. Just to see her gave me a sense of belonging to the human race. I no longer felt like I crawled out from under a rock or was dropped off by an alien spaceship. I had a mother and she looked like me. My brothers and sister looked like me too. She cried and held me in her arms and I felt like that tiny baby she had given birth to 17 years ago and was holding for the first time. I felt like I finally came home.

Because somewhere between the narcissistic, selfish or desperate need for a child and the desire to make a buck, everyone else’s needs and wants are put before the kids needs. We, the children of surrogacy, become lost. That is the real tragedy.

Reflection on DI Dad's Explanations

2007-01-18T18:49:00.000-05:00

There are so many things that could be said about a very honest and open blog entry by Eric Schwartzman. In response to various questions he received, he offered an explanation of why he and his wife chose the donor-insemination route of having children. Here are bits of what he wrote, along with my comments.

In writing these comments, my words are sometimes sharp. However, I mean no disrespect to Eric and his wife, should they read this. I am sure they are doing a great job raising their children, probably better than many other (biological) parents. I have no doubt about their love for their son. However, LOVE is not everything, despite what we hear today. The fact remains that the Schwartzmans intentionally created a child in an unethical way that violated their son's rights. Why did they do it?

"As far as I know and saw the desire of my wife was to bear her own children. The pain I saw during each failed IVF cycle and failed DI cycle was pure. She wanted that biological desire to be pregnant and give birth to a child."

This is one of the common reasons for resorting to reproductive technology. It is, as those reasons tend to be, self-focused. It's natural for a woman to want to experience pregnancy and to want to give birth. It's natural for a husband to want to fulfill that desire in his wife. On the other hand, this is still just a DESIRE. It's not a NEED; she will not die if it is not fulfilled (many other women also do not fulfill this desire). In addition, it is most certainly not a RIGHT, because no one has the RIGHT to another human being. While people do have the right to try, no one has the right to actually HAVE a child. Unfortunately, this strong emotional desire for parenting has now been taken to the level of trumping other people's fundamental rights and needs - like the right of a child to its own biological parents.

"Why was it important for my wife to be related herself? Because she could and needed to be....She wanted to be pregnant because that biological need or desire was overriding and that she / we wanted to raise a family together as one more facet of the life we wanted to gether."

Interesting...again, this glaring contradiction (sometimes called hypocrisy) has been commented on by DI children. It was SO important to the wife to be biologically related to her child, that she ripped out another equally strong biological connection from her new son's life, just to have it herself. Well, what is her son supposed to think of that? Has anyone thought about HIS "needs" for biological connections to his parents? Couldn't his need be just as strong as the wife's? Eric says it accurately here when he says that her desire was "overriding." In effect, it tanked over her own son's needs and rights. Of course, it was easier to do back then because her son didn't even exist. It's easy to eliminate the rights of someone who isn't even born yet.

"Now onto my rationale of half adoption and reconciling that need to the child’s need (and ours) for kinship. I don’t wholly believe kinship need be via blood. I believe kinship can be gained via loving relationships and shared experiences. Where blood kinship can be found it should be celebrated (via my wife’s family, via developing bonds to half siblings perhaps). Where there are no blood kinships social bonds are just as important."

It's great that Eric also recognizes his son's need for kinship. Yet he follows that with another contradiction: social bonds can be "just as important" as blood kinships. So then, why the need for biological kinship? So where it CAN be found, biological relationships should be "celebrated", but where they can't, they really aren't more important than social ties? So if everything is equal after all, then why are biological ties worth celebrating?

It's interesting that Eric says, where blood ties "can be found". As if it was just accidental or something out of their control. The fact is, in this case they intentionally created that lack of kinship, they intentionally bore that kinship hole into their son's life.

"My son knows I love him and he returns that love based on our mutual actions. He accepts my role as father as he knows little beyond basic biology and only can truly appreciate that I am there for him when he needs me to be and that I am an integral part of his life as he knows it....Did he and I need the blood kinship to be father and son? No....Do I know that biologicaly I am not their father. Yes."

Saying something does not make it so...You can re-define the words "father" and "son" to include a man who is willing to pretend he is the biological father. He is willing to take on the role that actually belongs to the biological father, and assume that man's right to raise his own biological child. But he cannot really become that man. However much we twist ourselves into a verbal pretzel, the fact will always be that Eric is only a stand-in for the real father of his boy. His son is carrying the genes of a completely different man and belongs in the genealogy of that other man. His real father has, in a sense, "given him up for adoption" by donating his sperm. Eric is in fact the adoptive father to his son.

Eric's blog is a sad one to read. Don't get me wrong. He is very articulate, the blog is well-written, so interesting and good reading. However, the unethical nature of their son's conception just takes my appetite away. Nothing they can do or say can really compensate their son for that. Even if their love reaches the heavens, it can never replace the genetic father.

How many of us would willingly give up our own father? I wonder what Eric's son would have chosen, had he really been given the choice. Imagine that he had been in the room with the Schwartzmans, the doc, and the sperm donor, that he knew them all and was old enough to make rational decisions. Would he have still chosen to sever all ties with his biological father and be raised only by the Schwartzmans? Isn't it possible that he would have loved his biological father and his biological father's family, and that he would NOT have consented to the fate that befell him?

But he did not have that choice. The choice was made for him that his biological father didn't matter, and that social ties to his "social" father were just as good.

Indeed, he will never really have that choice, because for him, his real father will be an unknown. He will never know what he missed out on. But he will have missed out, because there are certain aspects that a "social" father just cannot replace. And there will surely be a hollow place in the son where there will always be a longing.
.

A single mom hopes that dads aren't important after all

2007-01-18T15:30:00.000-05:00

"I am a single mom by choice, and I had Molly using an anonymous donor from Northwest Andrology and Cryobank....I can only hope that Molly won't grow up feeling like something is missing from her life. I hope to be enough of a great mom to her that she will only feel loved, and not feel incomplete at not having two parents....I truly believe that if you are honest with your children from the very beginning, and focus on all the things that they DO have in their lives, that they will grow up to be healthy, happy adults who can accept, and hopefully embrace, the way they came to be. " --Sandi, the mother of a 2 1/2 year old donor-inseminated daughter

All that children need is...love, health, and honesty, right?

Wrong. Fathers exist in nature for a reason. The fact is, no matter how great a mom Sandi is, she will always be only that - a MOM. She can never replace a father, nor can she ever be a good enough substitute for two parents. It has nothing to do with the virtuosity of her parenting skills.

Nothing in the world can erase the fact that Sandi INTENTIONALLY, for her own selfish reasons, created a child that is completely and utterly deprived of its own biological father. And now, to add to the injustice, that poor child will inevitably be guilt-tripped into pretending that it really doesn't need, want or miss having a father at all.

It boggles the mind how people can mislead themselves in the quest to get and keep what they want, no matter how immoral. People can rip out a whole parent from the lives of children they supposedly love, and still delude themselves that they are doing everything right and providing the best for their children.

Sorry Sandi. If you are single, you were never supposed to have a baby in the first place, as cruel as that sounds. It's not always about YOU. Sometimes it's about someone else, and in this case, it was about your daughter, and her NATURAL RIGHT to two parents - to her OWN, biological parents. You did not have the right to take that away from her, and no matter how hard you try, you can never replace her father in her life.

So as much as you can say you are a "single mom by choice," in fact, that choice never belonged to you, and you had no right to make it.
.