Another cry of pain

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

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...

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?

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

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

(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

(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.