Archives: May 2010

‘Who Did I Come From? Children of Donor Dads Grow Up’

05.31.2010 10:48 PM

by Carolyn Moynihan, MercatorNet (Australia)

A revealing new study reveals that, for donor offspring at least, being wanted isn’t everything

Experts estimate that there could be around one million young people alive in the world today as a result of sperm donation. How are they doing? Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values and colleagues have done a unique study based on a large, representative US survey and, in a report published today, tell us that the kids, many of them, are not okay. In this interview with MercatorNet during a recent conference hosted by the Social Trends Institute in Barcelona, she talks about some of her findings.

MercatorNet: Reproductive technologies raise the question, as you have put it, of whether the child is a “gift or commodity” for us now. Historically, was “gift” the predominant way of looking at the child?

Elizabeth Marquardt: In working on my paper it struck me that the religious traditions of the world are very powerful on the idea of the child as a gift but in part because it is an idea that we humans have not always resonated completely with. I think there is a strong human impulse to want to control life and predict what will happen next and to will away suffering and uncertainty, and so the religious injunction that the child is a gift is something of a corrective to the impulse to control life, long before reproductive technology was available.

At the same time it is clear that the experience of a child as a gift for a woman or a couple remains a strong element of becoming a parent, and so I believe that religious traditions today can still offer insights into this experience.

On the other hand I think it’s too easy to say that we only came to treat the child as a commodity in the wake of reproductive technology. The human race has probably long had a tendency to see children not as means in themselves but as means to our ends — as labourers, or as insurance in our old age or for many other purposes. Reproductive technologies have given us a new and more chilling way of seeing the child as commodity. Read More


Process & Procurement

05.31.2010 12:59 PM

When cooking, its best to consider your ingredients and necessary tools when preparing a dish. You can search the local markets for the best spices and herbs, and take a trip to Williams-Sonoma for the best in culinary hardware—and when you come across that perfectly tender peace of veal, you will take pleasure in the process of marinating it, curing it, and giving it loving attention as heat and time slowly bring it to that delightful space of full flavor where every bite bursts on your tongue and you feel your body warmed with satisfaction and appreciation. And you’ll probably follow that bite with a sip of wine—perhaps you prefer a red because of its antioxidants, and perhaps you prefer it to be fermented locally, maybe even in an oak barrel, maybe even in an oak barrel imported from France because you heard that their oak is better than American oak. My point is, your beautiful meal, and the beautiful wine you wash it down with, was made with love and consideration in a process with ritual and consideration.

Do the holistics of such a meal appeal to you? Would you prefer a Big Mac and a coke?

It amazes me the intellectual energy some folks put into their food and beverages all while cheating the next generation of Americans the same kind of thoughtful consideration of process.

It’s a tough time realizing for the first time that your parents have serious shortcomings that hindered your well-being. I would agree it happens to everyone and its part of the journey of life to forgive and accept the unique challenges that come with every family situation, but perhaps each challenge is still worth describing… I’d like to offer you a timeline of poor decision making as my mother and her husband attempted to deal with life’s little struggles.

1981- adopted my sister from Korea. Apparently it was relatively easy with Korea’s particular bureaucracy structure at that time. Read More


How Do I Get a Copy of the Study?

05.31.2010 12:57 PM

To those who are asking how they can get a copy of My Daddy’s Name is Donor, released today, the good news is the 140 page study is available free, as a pdf. See the left side of this screen or click this link.

We will also have hardcopies of the study available for purchase soon — check back at FamilyScholars.org for updates. (But let me assure you, the pdf available from this page is exactly the same thing that will appear in the published hardcopy version.)


What’s in a Name?

05.31.2010 12:24 PM

Thanks to Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn, and Karen Clark for helping to bring attention to the critical issues, concerns and needs of offspring conceived through third party gametes. The authors focused on offspring conceived through sperm, who may constitute just under 1% of all babies born in the US today.

I want to add a few notes about language, sale, and anonymity. As we all know, and as some of the offspring make painfully clear, most of the gametes, whether they be sperm or eggs, are not donated; they are sold. Use of the term “donor” suggests that gamete provision is an altruistic act.  Yet it is far more complicated than that, bringing in issues of commodification, gender, medicalization, parenthood, and identity.   For example, Yale sociologist Rene Almeling notes that: “In both egg agencies and sperm banks, the practice of providing financial compensation in return for gametes is called ‘donation,’ but egg donation is framed as a gift while sperm donation is framed as a job.” (72 Law and Contemp. Prob. 37, 56 (2009).   One of the survey respondents labeled the act of paying for a gamete “donation” an “oxymoron.”  (p. 26 of the report)

I’ll set aside (for this post, at least) the issues of payment,   but I do find something wrong with how we frame the act of providing gametes so that others can have children.  Our language does not recognize the mixed motives of gamete providers, and instead cloaks these transactions in the altruistic fantasy of donation. Moreover, given that these transactions result in the creation of babies, I also find something terribly wrong with not recognizing their interests, and I agree with the authors, Ross Douthat, and Wendy Kramer on the need to end anonymity.

I’m writing an article AND a book on the need to transform how we think about transactions in gametes: they are not simply medical procedures or business dealings — they also create families.


You say social father. I say step-father. Let’s call the whole thing off.

05.31.2010 12:11 PM

I recently read a report on the Cinderella Effect: the phenomenon of stepchildren suffering from higher incidences of child abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, or general mistreatment at the hands of their non-biological step-parent. I by no means am attempting to condemn every step-parent out there, however, the number one predictor for child abuse is, in fact, a child living in a home with a non-biological father.

When I argue about my loss of a biological father some say to me, “But Alana, you had a Dad. Why are you complaining?” They beg for me to describe the reasons for my anger and feelings of being cheated. Well, there are things that happen in a home that shouldn’t be shared with every stranger. There are privacy issues, and loyalties to the mother, and an unwillingness to disseminate the only family structure that does exist- there are huge pressures to be mindful of that often mean sacrificing truth and withdrawing from vocalizing hurt.

So consider life history theory:

…the assumption that any evolutionarily successful organism must balance its allocation of time, energy, risk, and other resources to itself- its own growth and maintenance (somatic effort)- with those spent on finding a mate and beginning reproduction.

and its implications:

…If child abuse is a behavioral response influenced by natural selection, then it is more likely to occur when there are reduced inclusive fitness pay-offs owing to uncertain or low relatedness. Thus, abuse of stepchildren by stepparents should be more likely than abuse of biological offspring by parents…

Donor offspring will be raised by at least one non-biological parent 100% of the time. So what is the likelihood that they will be abused? The lucky ones turn out un-scarred, maybe only suffering from slight negligence. The rest of us can place our harm on a value chart, or rate it from 1 to 10 as we wonder to ourselves, if my biological father had raised me, would it have happened this way?


A Reader Responds, Cont’d

05.31.2010 10:28 AM

What seems to me to be the most tragic thing about this is that – I suspect – the difficulty of adopting compared to the relative ease of sperm and egg donation means that people who might have otherwise adopted are less likely to do so. I have no idea how this works out statistically, but it makes sense. Why go through the long, difficult, expensive process of adopting when one can use a donor so much more easily? As a result, there are numerous children in desperate need of a good home who are instead being shuffled through the foster-care system, while people who might have otherwise adopted instead opt to find a donor. That’s the real tragedy.


A Parent’s Friend Responds

05.31.2010 10:24 AM

I have a dear friend whose child was conceived with a sperm donor, egg donor and had a surrogate to carry the child. She is an attentive and loving mother, but I know that her child will be entering previously unexplored/unexperienced psychological territory. As a writer, I try to imagine what new archetypes we can create for these children – they are here now and whether it is just a sperm/egg donor or a more complicated combination – they will need the healing power of story and connection to understand their place in the world.


A Reader Responds

05.31.2010 10:19 AM

This is extremely thought-provoking, and I’m amazed to realize it’s something I’ve never thought about before: what is it like to be a human being conceived through assisted reproduction?


A Would-Be Parent Responds

05.31.2010 10:15 AM

 As someone who has dealt with infertility, I understand the feeling of desperately wanting a child. But I don’t think I could ever use donor material, because you just can’t tell how the child will feel about it. It doesn’t seem fair to me to deliberately create a person who will never know one of his biological parents. It shouldn’t matter, because parents of donor kids love their kids just as much as any other parent, but it does matter in our society. You can’t tell who’s going to be fine with it and who’s going to have a feeling of being abandoned by the donor parent…


It’s long overdue: an offspring responds to “My Daddy’s Name is Donor”

05.31.2010 8:13 AM

With today’s release of “My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation,” the fertility industry and the physicians who claim to abide by a code of ethics should be ashamed.

Co-investigators Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn, and Karen Clark, have done what the medical profession failed to do since the first recorded donor insemination was instigated in Philadelphia in 1884. This report and survey – the first of its kind – delves into the medical and social experiment that is anonymous donation conception.

Unfortunately, the medical establishment and fertility industry have utterly failed the children they helped to bring into the world by being dismissive, uninterested or else openly hostile to our lived experiences.

I have experienced this first hand. Read More


A Family Therapist Responds

05.31.2010 1:26 AM

Responding to Ross Douthat’s column, “The Birds and the Bees (via the Fertility Clinic)” about our new report, one reader left the following comment at nytimes.com:

For possibly the first and last time, Mr. Douthat, I am in complete agreement with you! As a family therapist, who has worked with many families of adoption and sperm donation, I have seen the effect on children who will NEVER be allowed to know who their biological father and his family are. Adopted children have ways to find their biological families, if they wish–and many do not! But children of sperm donors do not have the right of knowing their biological heritage, even if they want this terribly!

Americans are delusional about the idea that excellent parenting can make all of this unimportant and beside the point. Truth be told, it never has been beside the point, and never will be! All of us–on some level–want to know our biological/psychological heritage! To have access to this information would be liberating for so many of these “sperm donor” children, now grown up! And make our “feel good” culture more authentic and mature!


The Birds and the Bees (via the Fertility Clinic)

05.30.2010 11:06 PM

The May 31 New York Times column by Ross Douthat is on the new study, My Daddy’s Name is Donor.  It’s a good piece.


Why biological ties matter

05.30.2010 10:49 PM

Usually in the midst of the debates surrounding anonymity and sperm donation, someone will ask:

“Why does knowing your biological family matter, isn’t love enough?”

I always say that they are two very different things. Love matters hugely for children and I am very glad I grew up in a loving home. However, love does not change or erase the loss that comes with not knowing your biological origins and having no way of being able to find these biological ties.

I have always wanted to know. Always. When I was first told about my conception when I was 5-years-old, I thought it was cool and unique but I wanted to know. And I never saw him as a sperm donor. I never saw that he just gave sperm. To me – instinctively – he was my biological father. Not ‘dad,’ because that implies a personal relationship, but he was my biological father and I was immediately curious about him.

Who was he? What did he do? And what did he look like? As a grew older, my understanding and thoughts about my conception became more complex. I started wondering, did he think about what he did? Did he get paid? Does he care that I exist? I wasn’t looking for a new ‘dad,’ I just wanted answers to questions that were central to my identity and to my existence.

I think at the age of 8 or 9, I would spend hours looking in the mirror at my features and looking at photos of my mom, I tried to figure out what was hers and what was from the faceless, nameless person whose cells contributed to half of what was reflected back at me in the mirror.

When I was in fifth grade, our teacher asked us to draw our family tree and research a country of our ancestors. I wondered where mine came from. Yes, I had paternal family, my dad’s parents, brothers and sisters and knowing them meant that they were my family too. However, going back further to family born on my dad’s side in the 1800s, I realized those people weren’t my family. I never knew them and I wasn’t related to them. If knowing your biological roots didn’t matter then genealogy wouldn’t exist and this class assignment would have never happened. If knowing your biological roots didn’t matter, anthropologists wouldn’t have found that varying forms of ancestor worship can be found throughout all cultures throughout time. Whether the Totem poles of the indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest to the multi-generational stories in the First Testament to the offerings placed on century-old family tombs in China, human beings have always had a need to know where they come from and to pass on their stories to their  offspring.

If biology didn’t matter, donor anonymity would have never started in the first place. The fact it was deemed necessary to create anonymity, usually argued for the sake of ‘protecting’ the sperm donor and the infertile partner, is proof that the reality of biological ties are so strong that minimizing its presence was the  only way to legitimize the practice.

If biological roots didn’t matter, we wouldn’t have a whole fertility industry whose priority is to maximize the genetic continuity of the parents using the technologies. If it didn’t matter, no one would care about having their own biological children. People who are infertile grieve not being able to pass on their lineage to their children. I grieve the same thing: not knowing the person who gave me mine.


Twenty Years of Consensus-Building on Marriage and the Family

05.30.2010 12:07 AM

Our webmaster has completed the formidible task of putting our marriage and family-related books, reports, briefs, fact sheets, and consensus statements on the new FamilyScholars.org site. Click the link called Publications, above, to find everything organized by “Marriage,” “Mothers,” “Fathers,” “Civil Society,” and “The Future of Parenthood.”


‘Five Myths About Working Mothers’

05.30.2010 12:02 AM

FamilyScholars bloggers June Carbone and Naomi Cahn have a piece appearing in tomorrow’s Washington Post titled, “Five Myths of Working Mothers.” The list?

…Mothers today spend much less time caring for children than did their parents and grandparents… Women’s jobs interfere with family life more than men’s… Mothers with college degrees are more likely than other women to opt out of the workforce… Women who work are less likely to have successful marriages… Parents don’t experience discrimination in the workplace.

I’d quibble with whether some of these really are widely-assumed “myths” (does anyone really think college-educated women are more likely to opt out? Or that mothers don’t experience workplace discrimination?) but they make some interesting arguments, here.


Being Conceived From a Sperm Donor and Being ‘Wanted’

05.29.2010 11:52 PM

Soon-to-debut FamilyScholar blogger Olivia Pratten writes:

I have been speaking out publicly about my donor conception for many years. I am always very critical of the anonymity, the means to which I was brought into the world and I’m almost always disapproving of the infertility industry. 

Inevitably someone will say to me “but you were so wanted.” 

My answer is always, “yes, and your point?”

To natively think that being wanted means I will not have feelings to my conception is illogical and naive. Many children conceived naturally are also very wanted. Does that mean if one of their parents decided to leave the family or if that parent became ill, that the child has no right to have feelings about this?

Of course not. Our existence of being wanted in the world is completely irrelevant to our experience of BEING in the world. 

Anyway, usually the unspoken inference of being  told we’re “wanted,” is that we’re supposed to be so grateful to the point we’re expected to be silent. 

Which begs the question, why are we expected to be a happy and silent? When the parents using the technologies are called the “consumers,” that means the resulting children are the “products.” The industry is selling a product that is supposed to be happy, content and grateful. Thus, when the “product” speaks and voices displeasure, it’s threatening, because we’re evidence that there’s no guarantee we’ll arrive happy and grateful as promoted and promised by the infertility industry.  


Finale B

05.29.2010 3:16 PM

There is no future, there is no past…thank God this moment’s not the last.

There’s only yes, there’s only this, forget regret, or life is yours to miss,

No other road, no other way, no day but today…

I die without you…No day but today.   16 – Finale B

Just finished reading Dr. David Casarett’s book, Last Acts, and I couldn’t help but hum “Finale B” from the musical Rent.  Drawing on his experiences as a palliative care physician who companions people on their final journey, he asks this guiding question:  When disease places a constrictive frame on your life canvas, thus limiting the length of your existence, what are your last acts and why?  Each chapter follows a different patient as they script their “efforts to recreate a sense of purpose out of changing circumstances.” (287)   

He concludes the book with Christine, who for the most part acts in the wise, focused and calm manner that many of us probably hope that we will embody when we face the end of life.  Read More


The Couple that Saves Together, Stays Together

05.28.2010 5:18 PM

Well, we now know money matters in a range of important ways for marriage. Catherine Kenney and Ryan Bogle have an important new study out showing that married couples who do not pool their income are much more likely to divorce. In fact, such couples are 145% more likely to head to divorce court, compared to couples who share a checkbook. In the financial domain, as in others, couples  do better when they create a common life together. I’m waiting now for Kenney to take up the subject of commuter couples!

And, btw, they also find that couples are much more likely to divorce when wives bring home a substantial share of the bacon, and that different patterns of income pooling help explain black-white differences in divorce. So, if we can only get more couples to open up a joint checking account!


Donor Conception and the Unsettling of the Human Person

05.28.2010 1:28 PM

I was reading Wendell Berry’s essay, “The Unsettling of America,” on the subway this morning, in which he describes how the American narrative—and I would add, the narrative of modernity—can be understood by the division between exploitation and nurture. He takes the strip miner as the model exploiter, and the old-fashioned farmer as the model nurturer. “The standard of the exploiter,” he says “is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The exploiter’s goal is money, profit; the nurturer’s goal is health—his land’s health, his own, his family’s, his community’s, his country’s…. The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place.” Of course, all this “exploitation” has been done in the name of human progress: we strip mines so that we may have things like coal to keep us warm and to give us electricity.

Laying aside the question of whether or not you agree that a strip miner is a model exploiter, Berry’s distinction between the exploiter and the nurturer, I think, fairly characterizes what is happening with assisted reproductive technologies. In the name of progress—indeed, in the name of nurture!—entrepreneurs are exploiting the human body, extracting sperm and eggs from one person and inseminating them into another person. (If you doubt whether “exploitation” fairly characterizes what’s going on, read here the account of Alena Sveta, fellow blogger and one woman who’s experienced both ends of donor conception.) In the name of progress, we extracted extravagantly from the earth. Now, in the name of humanism—even family values—we are on to the human person. Infertile and wanting a child? No problem. Meanwhile entrepreneurs make huge sums of money, taking advantage of, among other people, young women with loads of college debt who can quickly make a couple grand by “donating” an egg. Read More


Reading “Fatherless America” & Crying

05.27.2010 3:56 PM

Since I’m somewhat new in the Family Scholars network, I’ve only recently managed to get copies of Elizabeth Marquardt’s book “Between Two Worlds- The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce” and David Blankenhorn’s “Fatherless America- Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem”. I just finished Elizabeth’s yesterday and I’m working on David’s. I’ve spent the last couple of days crying, crying!- at work, at home alone, in the lap of my surprised and concerned boyfriend, because never before has anyone articulated and recognized what have been my most pressing personal struggles so acutely as you have done with your work.

Elizabeth and David, because I know you’re reading- the work you’ve done, your research and investigations speak a huge truth. You both are brilliant and what I consider to be a godsend for kids like me. Because I’ve read your words, I no longer feel so crazy and confused about how my behaviors have betrayed idyllic notions of what a middle-class, intelligent female is supposed to look like. Because I’ve read your words, I don’t feel guilty and responsible anymore. I feel set free. I feel understood, finally. I can’t thank you enough for the work and struggle you’ve both championed.

Please don’t ever feel deterred. You may not feel like literal doctors and I may not be a literal patient on your operating table, but you’re saving my life and the lives of people like me nevertheless.