CNN is doing a documentary on one gay couple’s journey to have a family using donor eggs and surrogacy. It airs tomorrow night at 8 pm EST. The teaser lays down a history of Gary and Tony’s twenty-year-strong bond. The two men are committed. They are likable. They appear to be great candidates for fatherhood.
The only problem is… neither of them have a functioning uterus. Or eggs. But that’s not a problem a little cash can’t fix.
Watching them stroll along a New York sidewalk with Soledad, greeting strangers’ toddlers, pining for their own tykes, my mind is overwhelmed. I want Gary and Tony to be happy. I like them. They appear to be great guys. I respect their story and so, I respect them. But I can’t separate my life experience from this issue of gamete donation and surrogacy. As much as I want to be a yea-sayer to Gary and Tony’s deepest desires, I know so intimately the pain of being DENIED a biological parent (and being taught that it was a good thing!).
There are words that escape their mouths that worry me. “I’ve always wanted kids… it brings out the kid in me… There’s nothing like the love of a child.” Soledad begins the program with: “[Everywhere around them they're reminded of] what they’re missing… Everyone seems to have a child.” Their words are self-focused. They want what other people have. They feel that having a child will complete them.
There was not a word about what kind of adult they intend to raise and teach. Not a thought about an adolescent or adult child’s needs or if their plans provide for a thriving foundation for any kind of human over the age of 8.
Sometimes I worry when I complain about not having my father. I wonder if I’m being selfish in my criticisms. Shouldn’t I just accept my situation? Shouldn’t I suppress this unyielding desire within me to find him and know him and make sure every other child born after me knows their biological parents too? Am I too self-focused also?
But then I realize… These men are in their late 40′s. They’ve had a rich life- a rich youth. They’ve enjoyed several decades worth of life and joy before this sudden “incompleteness” hit them. Their children will endure and suffer an existence without their mother from the moment of conception. When their cognitive abilities sharpen and they hit adulthood (and all the troublesome realizations of commercial conception), their parents will enter geriatric care. Not only will these kids more profoundly experience the pain of not having a mother, they will also lose their fathers right when all of this becomes real for them…
But according to CNN and the mainstream zeitgeist, that’s okay, because Gary and Tony want a baby, and we like Gary and Tony.
Categories: General
Their words are self-focused. They want what other people have. They feel that having a child will complete them.
There was not a word about what kind of adult they intend to raise and teach. Not a thought about an adolescent or adult child’s needs or if their plans provide for a thriving foundation for any kind of human over the age of 8.
That makes them like 98% of parents, who have the same selfish desires and who don’t think too far beyond the moment. There’s no special existential reality that comes from having both a functioning uterus and a functioning sperm in the same household.
There may be plenty to criticize, but let’s not idealize that model bio family to the point we lose cite of the reality that most children in America–even when born to a working uterus and sperm–are unplanned or created without little foresight beyond the next two years.
Really, really well-said.
Motherless from the moment of conception. Until two minutes ago everyone the world over agreed motherlessness was the worst tragedy that could befall a child. Now, it’s apparently debatable. Because we like Gary and Tony.
Extraordinary.
(and Peter, sure, the rest of us are selfish too – but left to it’s own devices nature has worked out a pretty amazing fushion of sexual desire, innate selfishness, and hardwired increased propensity to sacrifice for the offspring of your loins — in turn giving those offspring the connectedness to mother, father and the human family that makes it so much more likely they will survive and thrive.)
Until two minutes ago everyone the world over agreed motherlessness was the worst tragedy that could befall a child. Because we like Gary and Tony.
I know you are trying to make a philosophical argument, but the dramatics of it all makes it difficult to swallow.
Damn those likeable homosexuals and single women and, even worse, those awful infertile couples who sneaked in and got marriage licenses despite the procreation requirement. Don’t they realize the horrors they are bringing on the world by their selfish desires. Why can’t they accept their second-class status and be happy about it before they hurt the children?
I regret that I wrote that. I have a visceral reaction to the anger and pain that people express here, but also the anger and pain of people whose lives are being dismissed because they are infertile, or single, or gay and being viewed as villains.
(And yes, Elizabeth, the bloggers here (including you) portray lots of people as villains. It’ not closing off conversation, it’s stating a reality in how “the bad people” (the infertile, single women, gays, NYT writers) often seem to be portrayed here).
Can’t agree that contributers to this discussion regard those who seek DC as “villains”.
The bottom line, as I see it, is this……is it moral to relieve the pain of one person by creating pain for another??
Undoubtedly some people are disbelieving of the pain caused by DC; despite the anguish described by significant numbers of adult DC persons.
If we are made aware that it is highly likely to cause suffering to be created through DC practices (including surrogacy); is it justifiable to intentionally create this trauma in the life of another person??
If I project in my writing that i view infertile couples as villains then that is very regrettable.
My mom is no villain. She’s a bookworm from a little farming community in the Midwest. She’s a good person and she takes care of her family the best she knows how.
She was misinformed. She was misled by an industry that sold her into thinking donor conception would fix all of her problems.
Part of my motivation for contributing to this blog is to educate parents about the struggles to expect. There will continue to be more and more donor kids born and the fertility industry are the only people offering information to parents about what to expect. Parents are being misinformed. If my mom had better information she could have made better decisions. This affects her well-being too.
No villains just naivete and cloudy words that skew the truth.
Peter, we have no indication that either of these men is “infertile” in any way.
What we DO know, is that they aren’t even trying. They’re paying retail.
I agree strongly with Alana. What I have found astounding about donor-conception as I have come to understand the practice better is that so much harm can be done by well meaning people.
No villains just naivete and cloudy words that skew the truth.
Well, A truth. YOUR truth. But not THE truth. You are speaking about your experience–and that is important–but it is not a universal experience, as the study IAV is promoting points out. I realize that these kinds of discussion force us to talk in sweeping generalities, but there does need to be a certain amount of personal ownership when telling ones story.
I agree Peter, donor-conception experiences differ from person to person. But the fact is that some people *are* harmed by donor-conception, and it’s that that makes it wrong.
Not all people suffer long term consequences from being shot with a gun, either. Many recover with hardly a scar. Some of them might even regard the event as a life-changing experience and feel blessed to have been shot. Trouble is, some people suffer and don’t feel blessed to have been shot.
But the fact is that some people *are* harmed by donor-conception, and it’s that that makes it wrong.
Some people are harmed from having working mothers. Some people are harmed from having parents who can’t get married because the law doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. Some people are harmed from having parents who leave the parenting to nannies.
Would you consider working mothers WRONG as a blanket condemnation? Bans on gay marriage WRONG? Nannies WRONG?
The question seems to be about competing goods. Is the good of allowing people to use reproductive technology to have children outweighed by the good of preventing harm to a portion of kids born from those situations?
If you think the harm suffered by donor-conceived people is remotely comparably to that suffered by children of working mothers or children raised by nannies then it’s not worth continuing the discussion.
Hmm, the harm is definitely comparable, yes we should be reducing the number of working mothers too. Again, they’re not villians or bad people (well, some are pushing the culture as well as being pushed by it).
There is no good of allowing people to commit adultery or experiment on humans to create people, any more than there is good in allowing people to rob people at gunpoint. And there is way more that’s bad about it than merely the harm to the people that are created.
If you think the harm suffered by donor-conceived people is remotely comparably to that suffered by children of working mothers or children raised by nannies then it’s not worth continuing the discussion.
That’s actually the point, Tom. There are people who think the most important issue harm because it’s personal to them is moms working outside the home or nannies or having gay parents who can’t marry. To them, it is the most important harm there is unmatched by anyone else’s experience.
Wait until some enterprising fertility clinic advertises this method of conception as being ideal for men who don’t want to risk losing custody of their children due to divorce.
Peter Hoh- good point.
I was delighted to interview an author today working on a book tentatively titled “Do Fathers Matter?”
I asked him about his background and he put forward that he was denied custody of his children and missed out on raising them for years…
It’s very painful for men to have their children taken from them. It’s also painful for children to have their fathers taken away from them.
So why are we so cavalier about these separations?
Just got a book today called “Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture.” by Paul Nathanson and Katherine . Young. Can’t wait to read it and start quoting it.
Peter….
Working Mothers & Nannies.
This topic is on my mind too. As a woman who hopes one day to be a mother- the idea of working 70 hour weeks like my own mom did is repulsive to me. Also… as a former nanny, I know not to expect a high quality of care from some delinquent 20-year-old making $15 an hour (I used to be that delinquent 20-year-old).
Paying someone else to raise your kids is awkward and inconsistent.
Working full time (or overtime) to give your kids a “better life” is directly in contradiction of doing just that. So what if you can now afford a Wii station? You really think your kid would rather play Wii than be with YOU? Now corporations are raising our kids instead of parents.
When did income replace free time as a measurement for success and progress?
I watched the show, and have to admit that I really believe those guys are going to make great dads. Does the kid need a mom? Maybe need is the wrong word. It would be nice if the kid had a mom. But I’m not convinced that a mom is needed for good child rearing. Those dads are well prepared.
Would you feel that the situation was better if it was an open surrogacy? That may not be the correct term; I mean, a situation in which Gary and Tony raised the child as their child, but the child also knew and had a relationship with its biological mother from infancy onward.
Openness seems to me to solve some of the ethical issues involved. I’m leery of the government stepping in and stopping all reproduction but the most reproduction. At the same time, keeping secrets from children about their own backgrounds seems obviously wrong.
Peter Hoh, I don’t think courts care about bio-relatedness when determining custody. I’d bet that if the court found out that the father seeking custody purposefully hired a surrogate and egg donor specifically to deny his child’s social/legal mother custody, they’d recognize that the guy was a major jerk and award his child to the mother. At least in Massachusetts they’d certainly do that.
Weren’t the surrogate and egg-”donor” also behaving like jerks?
Here is ONE of the ironies of all of this for me – one of “discrimination”.
I read here: http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2010/06/gary-tony-have-baby
“Not only does Gary and Tony’s surrogate wish to remain anonymous for fear of the prejudice she and her family might face from her rural Southern neighbors, but Tony’s mom also discusses the prejudice of her small town neighbors, while Tony’s sisters say they are glad the couple live in New York where they are safer. ”
and they conclude:
“Watching Gary and Tony hold hands, kiss, plan for their future child, have a baby shower, and generally act like any other expectant couple, made me think how much things have changed since the 1967 CBS special The Homosexuals, where the only gay man daring to show his face was Gore Vidal. Everyone else insisted on hiding their identities.
We’ve come a long way, baby. ”
BUT HAVE WE COME A LONG WAY or are we creating a new kind of discrimination?
As Bill Cordray mentioned in a recent post I made (http://familyscholars.org/2010/05/25/correcting-two-common-media-missatements)
“We have seen the inevitable media parody of DC people as young adults whose anger can be waved away as mere youthful pique and ingratitude. We look forward a public that respects our reactions to an unjust system that disregards our dignity.”
Has anyone read some of the comments people have made to Elizabeth’s and my Slate article or the one recently published in the Daily Mail?
To paraphrase a “donor conceived” person who recently (astutely) commented on this topic on another forum:
People who seem to support donor conception seem to be very intolerant of anyone who points out negative consequences of the process. Many of the comments are aggressive, abusive, hostile, vindictive, vitriolic and just plain nasty – aimed at the “donor conceived” who bare their souls and put themselves out there to help educate the public and protect their future “donor conceived brothers and sisters” from experiencing the same outcomes and heartache that they did
(not being allowed to know and connect with half or all of their bio family).
It is painfully obvious that the “donor conceived” who do not support donor conception (as a whole or in the way it is currently being practiced) feel intimidated to speak out. As our study showed
of those who favor donor conception, just 14 percent say they do not feel they can express their positive views about donor conception in “society at large.” By contrast, of those who oppose it, 46 percent said they do not feel they can express these negative views about donor conception in “society at large.”
And as this person wrote in a letter (http://www.thenation.com/blog/kids-are-just-fine-thanks/web-letters)
in response to an NPR commentary (http://www.thenation.com/blog/36426/kids-are-just-fine-thanks)
“What disturbed me the most about Ms. Douglas’s response was her dismissal of the voices of the donor-conceived children. I cannot help but see, once again, parallels to the experience of adult adoptees, particularly transracial and transnational, whose multitude of voices have been silenced by need of the affluent, white and Western market for adoptable children, and the huge profits that follow, similar to the big business interests of sperm banks. There is a growing rights movement of donor-conceived children advocating for their rights, most vehemently (and successfully in Sweden and the UK) for an end to anonymous donation. Sadly, their voices are frequently silenced in the United States. It saddens me to see the gay rights and feminist movements in such seeming opposition to the welfare of children. ”
It would be wonderful if the gay and lesbian alliances would support us
(the donor conceived – even the ones who have had bad experiences or don’t support it) in our endevours to speak our truth, gain the public’s respect and uphold our dignity.
We need to embrace each other, speak the truth – the good, the bad and the ugly, and work on making things better – TOGETHER.
John Howard, a man who wishes to eliminate the risk of losing his children to a divorce could hire a surrogate and procure an egg instead of getting married and having children the usual way. He’d have no wife (or partner) with whom he might have to contest custody.
How do you know if ten years from now he wouldn’t have a wife or partner who took on a parenting role? Unrelated people are often awarded custody, especially if they have taken on a parenting role. Sometimes, the state takes custody and puts the baby in foster care rather than leave it with an unfit parent.
There was story of a man who hired a surrogate who alarmed the nurses because he carried a bird on his arm and didn’t seem prepared to care for the premature twins. Not sure how that one turned out but the point is, bio-relatedness is no lock in custody battles.
[I'm using the term "donor conceived" because Karen uses it -- but sometimes she uses it in quotes, which makes me worry that it's inappropriate. Karen, if that isn't the appropriate term for me to use, please let me know what term you'd prefer.)
Karen writes:
Karen, this is really interesting. I think it would be wonderful if the appropriate lesbian and gay orgs (the ones that focus on family structures, perhaps?) supported the rights of donor-conceived people — both currently existing, and in the future — to know their own backgrounds, including a chance to know their biological parents.
However, an alliance is a two way street. What kind of support do you think an organization representing donor conceived people might offer LGBT people in return? Will you support same-sex marriage, for example, and speak out against opposition to equal marriage rights? Is it your view that same-sex couples should never have donor-conceived children, or do you think it might be acceptable as long as it was an “open” donation, rather than an anonymous donation?
(Those aren’t sarcastic questions; I honestly don’t know your view on those issues.)
It seems to me that both donor-conceived people and same-sex couples have something in common — both groups are in a position which gives them a strong interest in “alternative” family arrangements. And, of course, many donor-conceived people have lesbian or gay people in their families, or vice versa. It seems to me really possible that some sort of alliance could develop.
Hi Amp, that’s an interesting thought about an alliance. I worry though that the obvious alliance would be for donor conceived to support same-sex couples in their quest for bio-related children using “female sperm” or “male eggs”, so that donor conception for same-sex couples would be unnecessary. I would hope that most DC people would recognize that was even more unethical than DC, especially when larger issues such as sustainability and the long term effect on equality are concerned, if we allow people to be made from modified “tampered-with” gametes.
And that would still leave infertile hetero couples and singles pursuing donor conception, so as a solution to donor conception, it doesn’t really help the DC people, only the same-sex couples and the children they would have (according to the theory anyway – reality would probably be that the children are hurt worse than by having an unknown parent out there somewhere).
But an alliance could be helpful if they looked to enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise together. While it would continue to allow donor conception (and all other practices currently in use), it would affirm that people do have a right to use their own genes to conceive with their spouse and that marriages are society’s approval of conceiving children together, using the couple’s own genes. It would stop the pressure people are starting to feel to use ‘better’ genes than their own by affirming the rightness of using the marriages own genes. And of course it would give the same-sex couples equal protections and uniform CU’s in every state, protecting their DC children from confusing divorce cases.
Absurd. One of the men is the baby’s biological parent; they have said that they would be happy to include the woman who donated the egg and the woman who carried the baby in the baby’s life. They will make wonderful parents. You are one who sounds selfish here, willing to deny Gary and Tony the fatherhood they want because of something that you have found missing in your life. You do not know that their child will feel the same way. Talk about wanting to control other people’s lives.
John Howard’s comment comparing Donor Conception to being shot by a gun makes me wonder if the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values is going to launch a crusade to ban guns in this country. I suspect that they are not quite ready to face the ire of the NRA. It is much easier to pick on gay people than on conservative groups. As someone who grew up in a nontraditional family (not donor conceived, admittedly), I am very skeptical of people making generalizations. I have a good friend who was donor conceived. I can’t speak for him, but he has never expressed to me any resentment toward his mother for conceiving him in this way: he knows something about his donor, he was raised by his mother and grandmother and had a very close relationship with his uncle. He has always seemed to be a very happy person to me. I doubt that he would fit the profile that you seem intent on extrapolating from the experience of some people. This is not to deny the reality of your feelings, but it is to question whether you can speak for everyone who was donor conceived or whether public policy should be made on the basis of personal experience and a study that has been challenged as to its credibility.
Jay-
This is not about who can have sex with whom nor who can love whom.
This is about buying and selling children and deliberate denial of the biological/natural parent from raising and being a part of their child’s life WITHOUT the consent of the child.
Some children born through commercial conception will grow up to be fine with it, as we saw in the survey, about half are NOT okay with it.
and so congratulations for those DC people who thrive, untormented by their history (or lack thereof). But half of us have quips. Half of us consider this incredibly UNJUST.
Half is more than enough to disqualify this practice.
No one is denying Gary and Tony fatherhood.
Adoption? Foster care? Another conception in collaboration with a biological mother (such as the lesbian couple that is already mothering one of their biological children).
I would say this.
1. This isn’t about you. This post is littered with “I”, “I”, “I”. You admitted this hypocrisy yourself. Shame on you.
2. Adoptive parents are parents. Period. Even David Blankenhorn is on record that, because all of their children are planned, adoptive parents are at least as good, and sometimes better than biological parents. Although one father here is biological, this situation shares the positive planning aspect of adoptive parenthood.
3. Adopted children sometimes seek their biological parent(s), or more correctly, the idea they have in their mind of what that person might be. Gary and Tony have gone beyond their legal and moral obligations, to further ensure that these women and their families have a chance to be known to the child, and it seems likely at least one will, and possibly both.
4. The biological contribution of the surrogate should not be overlooked. The egg donor only donates DNA. The surrogate donates so much more, in terms of hormones and nutrients, and doesn’t just carry the child but actually shares her body with the child. We know now that biology is not determined entirely by DNA, but also significantly by its interaction with the environment around it, in this case the surrogate.
5. Attaining an age of 60, 65, or even 70, is not a death sentence in the USA. These two men appear to be very fit for their age, especially compared to the rest of the US population, and they seem likely to have access to top-notch medical care. I’m confident in their chances.
I strongly doubt that this discussion would be happening if Tony was Toni, an otherwise healthy woman with no uterus or ovaries, due to some previous problem.