In case anyone was wondering, the influential UK-based bioethics site, BioNews.org.uk, is still accepting rambling criticism of our My Daddy’s Name is Donor report released last summer. (The newest piece has the bizarre title, “My Daddy’s Name is Adoption.”)
(See my earlier rebuttal to a piece published there last summer, here.)
On November 2, 2010, Elizabeth Marquardt testified before the Australian Senate. Her remarks included this statement: ‘But I also want to make clear that – even with openness – the problems [allegations that donor-conceived children are more prone to social and legal trouble] do not completely go away. There seems to be something else about knowing that the person who raised you also deliberately denied you your other parent before you were even born’.
To those who know about donor conception, the words ‘deliberately denied you your other parent’ are striking. They seem to allege a wrong. This is no accident of wording, but a foreshadowing of Marquardt’s agenda of condemning all donor conception on the grounds that it denies the child access to his or her biological parents. This might be a respectable position, if Marquardt didn’t simultaneously praise adoption, despite the end result being the same…
The author, Vince Londini, seems not to have read, or at least, not to have read with any real attention, the section in our report called “Is Donor Conception ‘Just Like’ Adoption?” But you can read it, if you like, on pages 71-76, here.
Categories: My Daddy's Name is Donor
“But I also want to make clear that – even with openness – the problems [allegations that donor-conceived children are more prone to social and legal trouble] do not completely go away”
I have repeatedly requested some data on the “open donor” question; your report contains none, only conjecture. Have you obtained further data since then?
“My Daddy’s Name is Adoption – NOT!”
http://familyscholars.org/2011/05/18/my-daddys-name-is-adoption-not/
I don’t think being conceived this way will result in any negative experiences for the kids, its being abandoned to be raised by strangers for a few bucks that puts the kids in therapy. Well that and believing they are not good enough to be loved by their own relatives. Worse than rejection, fear of ambivalence, fear that their relatives would hardly react at all because biology is irrelevant to the formation of a family and they would not count as a real child. Yeah, being raised to believe that knowledge of your existence would be destroy the life of your parent and his “real children” that’s apt to raise some self esteem issues.
In an argument once – the worst thing my husband ever said to me – I wanted to move back home with my parents and my mother said no, and my husband said “look at yourself your own family doesnt even want to know you”. And that was the meanest thing I ever heard in my life. I’m sure it hurt like hell when I slapped him too. Never before or after have I raised my hand like that in anger to anyone. The mere suggestion that the people that their own father would think to himself “please go away and let me pretend you never existed – please don’t tell anyone I’m your father I’d be too embarrassed of you to admit your my child, you’d ruin my life go away go away and never call me again.” Ok tears stream down my face when I write that because that is how people I care about have felt about themselves and so far that has not been the reaction of their families when they swallow the lumps in their throats and say hello for the first time. But it could be that bad. I’m sure that fear is crippling.
Yes I know thousands of kids are fine being abandoned and have no desire to meet the people who left them behind. Those people don’t ask me for help so in many ways to me its as if the happily abandoned kids are a fa-lacy – I tend to think in black and white abandonment is bad rather than secondary acceptance is good. I’m hoping to keep an open mind because someday I’ll meet a person who loves being an only child and loves the fact there was no father to undermine the relationship with their mom.
“please go away and let me pretend you never existed – please don’t tell anyone I’m your father I’d be too embarrassed of you to admit your my child, you’d ruin my life go away go away and never call me again.” Ok tears stream down my face when I write that because that is how people I care about have felt about themselves and so far that has not been the reaction of their families when they swallow the lumps in their throats and say hello for the first time”
And THIS is why you’re input is so important to continue to share Marilynn…
I posted a comment in response to Londini’s assertion that the ‘debate has been going on for decades’. The ‘debate’ in America is new…actually nascent. Debate in British, European countries and Australia is older (though not ripened).
The Episcopal Church (TEC) is only beginning to look at the question of anonymous donor conception. Most persons I know in TEC have never thought about it. Previous discussions of medically assisted reproduction in TEC have not considered reports of donor conceived persons. The same can be said of almost every church that I am aware of in the US.
I do think that the MDND paints over problems in adoption practice with the ideal brush. Your distinction is good, however, that it isn’t the parents who intend to create children who will be separated from their genetic heritage.
Mark wrote:
“The Episcopal Church (TEC) is only beginning to look at the question of anonymous donor conception. Most persons I know in TEC have never thought about it. Previous discussions of medically assisted reproduction in TEC have not considered reports of donor conceived persons. The same can be said of almost every church that I am aware of in the US.”
Great point! The only religious organization attempting to address these issues are the Unitarian Universalists in their Religious Institute “A Time To Be Born: A faith based guide to assisted reproduction”
(http://www.religiousinstitute.org/sites/default/files/study_guides/atimetobeborn.pdf)
This organization is very supportive of assisted repro-tech and did not address the social, emotional, issues from the childs perspective or the larger ethical, social cultural issues. It should also be noted that the Unitarian Universalists are very LGBT friendly (active in advocacy etc.). I have to wonder it there is a connection.
I think Elizabeth might have written about this in the past but I cannot find any links.
To add to Karen’s comment: in the 1980′s and 90′s the Anglican Communion (including but not limited to Great Britain, Australia and the US) produced reports examining assisted reproduction including donor conception, but did not pursue the experience of donor conceived persons. These reports are available in print.
The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) sent a draft report soliciting responses due October 2010. Their draft did not include donor conceived perspectives.