Archives: October 2011

The logic of a child – the voice of reason for adults?

10.31.2011 2:09 PM

A couple of weeks ago I watched Style Networks “Sperm Donor” about a man who had produced over 70 kids through sperm donations. There was one conversation in the documentary that really stuck with me. It’s a dialogue between a single mom by choice and her daughter, about 6 years old I would guess. The mother says she always has been open with, and talked to her kids about how they were conceived.

This is a transcript of the talk the mother has with her daughter the day before they are going to meet the dad/sperm donor for the first time.

Mom: I wanna talk to you about going to meet Ben in Boston. Do you think that something might happen with mommy and Ben? Because he’s marrying another lady, who’s a very nice lady and he loves her a lot.  

Daughter: So he’s gonna break up with you?

Mom: He’s not with me silly. Remember?

Daughter: So you already broke up?

Mom: Ok sweetie, so is he in our lives? 

Daughter: No.

Mom: So how could we break up if he’s not in our lives?

Daughter: ‘Cause you’re married.

Mom: We’re not married. Why would you think that we would be married?

Daughter: Because you got the sperm!

Mom: How did mommy get the sperm?

Daughter: Google.

Mom: Google, that’s good. 


Two Views of Deliberate (Biological) Fatherlessness via Sperm Donation

10.31.2011 12:03 PM

At AnonymousUs two new stories by donor conceived persons were posted in the wee hours of this morning (my time).

One is a poem that imagines a painful dialog “between a sperm donor and his child who don’t know who each other is.”

The second is a thoughtful piece by a donor conceived person who writes:

I have never met my donor “father”, and I have no desire to do so. I do not see this lack of contact with my biological father as something missing in my life, and I have no hurt at the fact of my creation. What does cause me hurt, however, is the idea, constantly repeated by small numbers of donor-conceived children, and in popular media representations of the issue, that there must be something wrong with your life if you do not know your biological father.

and much more.


‘In their own way, these girls may be doing the best they can’

10.30.2011 10:21 PM

Below I posted an excerpt from a BioNews story about women as young as 18 looking for sperm donors. There are some very thoughtful comments; be sure to look at all of them.

In the meantime, I wanted to highlight this comment from a commenter who signed in as “Hello.” Even if you don’t agree with what she/he has to say (I suspect it is she, so I’m going to use the feminine), it strikes me that she has her finger on something. Something big, having to do with gender distrust and mother-daughter relationships and aging societies and much, much else in this strange 2011 world in which we find ourselves:

Many a girl and young woman are coming of age and spending their lives in dysfunctional neighborhoods and regions where marriage-worthy men are few and far between.  Many, if not most, of these guys are chronically unemployed, addicted, in prison etc. Even if they want to marry these girls see their chances as slim, and if they wait until marriage for motherhood they’ll probably never have children.  18 may seem young, but these girls’ mothers, aunts, and grandmas are not so young.  And since they’re the ones these girls will rely on for childcare and support they’re better off having kids before Mom and Co. start breaking down in their 50s and 60s due to smoking, unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle etc.  Having a kid at 18 won’t hinder a girl’s career prospects if (pre-baby) she finds high school too difficult get a diploma.  If she don’t have a career that gives her life meaning and purpose kids are the only thing she can produce that will give her life meaning.  And if she can’t rely on a husband for love and companionship her kids will be even more important to her because they’ll be her only family after the older generation passes.  So, in their own way, these girls may be doing the best they can.


‘Women as young as 18 searching for sperm donors online’

10.29.2011 10:11 PM

From BioNews:

‘I’m ready in every way possible to be a mum. The only problem is you need a male and female to make a baby and I only have the female part’, read an appeal by a 21-year old on an online forum.

These forums, such as babydonor.com, bring together prospective parents and potential sperm donors, and women under 25 account for up to a quarter of their advertisers.

A 20-year old care worker from Moray, who found a willing donor via online advertising, says of her experience: ‘He [the donor] has donated several times before and has stayed in contact with those families. I don’t want to just meet men in bars and sleep with them, I’m not that kind of girl.


Cohabitation Matters — to the Children

10.28.2011 4:45 PM

The latest reports show that cohabiting families exceed the traditionally married.  That the cohabiting casually connected has overtaken the legally committed is not really a surprise.  To many, marriage is now thought of as temporary.

I discuss it in my book IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU: A Grandparent’s Guide to Surviving Divorce in the Family:”

 “Couples seem to expect more from marriage these days. But they are not willing to work at their marriages long enough to realize those expectations. They ‘try out’ marriages like they try on shoes, something to be returned at the first sign of blisters.”

More and more couples reject marriage as just a piece of paper. They prefer the casually connection they think of as easier to dissolve.    The role models these couples are attempting to emulate are the  glittering celebrities whose marital instability is legendary and whose cohabitation has somehow helped  this kind of relationship  become acceptable by the society we live in. An example being Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell who with several marriages and his, hers and their children between them are still together.  Several grandchildren have even been added to the mix.

Susan Sarandon’s reign with Tim Robbins was ended with their “split” or disengagement after over twenty years together.   I call these examples Family Boarding House Unions because they consist of unrelated adults and children. These two couples are really not good examples since few of these kind of unmarried unions last this long. Read More


About that new COLAGE report

10.28.2011 2:43 PM

Example pro-report piece.

But is it peer-reviewed?

(Sorry, couldn’t resist. My far more serious reaction to the report, below.)


At the Movies: ‘There’s No Place Like Home’

10.28.2011 10:45 AM

An excellent piece by Steven Graydanus at Image Journal, with thanks to iMAPP newsletter for tipping me off to it.

”There’s no place like home.” It’s been over seven decades since Dorothy Gale murmured those reassuring words, ruby-slippered heels clicking beneath her. “Home” evokes associations of safety and security, whether in baseball, hide-and-seek, or board games like Sorry—but even in 1939 “home” wasn’t always the ideal picture of father, mother, and children safely under one roof. Dorothy was an orphan, to start with, and home was a place she started out running away from. Even when she returned, she wasn’t safe; a twister blew in a window, knocking her cold, and seemingly uprooted the house itself, carrying it far away—though in the end she found her house on its foundations and all as it should be.

With respect to the uncertainties of home life, what was already a reality for Dorothy looms much larger for family film audiences today. Read More


Diana Furchtgott-Roth on individual vs. family coverage in new health plan

10.28.2011 10:41 AM

If this is in fact true, this is a serious problem:

…At yesterday’s hearing of the health subcommittee of  the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Cornell University  economics professor Richard Burkhauser showed that in 2014, millions of  low-income Americans may be unable to get subsidized health insurance through  the new health care exchanges.

It’s true that under Obamacare, firms with more than  49 workers have to offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time  employees or pay a penalty. But the coverage only has to be for an individual  policy, not a family policy.

And what most people don’t know is that if a worker  receives coverage for a single person from his employer, his family will not be  able to get subsidized health insurance coverage under the exchange. Read More


Rise of the Planet

10.26.2011 11:11 PM

I’d like to start off by thanking Elizabeth for inviting me to be a guest blogger. For those who don’t know me (most of you) my name is Rickard Newman, I’m a recent transplant to New York and I’m engaged to Alana S. Since I met Alana I went from knowing nothing about the fertility industry to being knee-deep in near constant immersion in the topic. A year ago I didn’t even know there was such a thing as a fertility “industry”. Today I’m making my own documentary about it. Thank you for letting me share some of my thoughts with you.

Yesterday I watched the movie “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. After being three feet away from a black back gorilla in Uganda earlier this year I now have to watch everything with big apes – real or computer animated, doesn’t matter. Unexpectedly I found a story that reminded me of something familiar, perhaps even with a lesson to be learned. Let me give you an introduction to the first 30 minutes of the movie.

A young genius scientist comes up with what he believes is the cure for Alzheimer’s. He tests his medicine on chimps and one of them shows outstanding growth of intelligence due to the healing effects the medicine has on its brain. But one day the chimp goes on a rampage for no obvious reason and security at the laboratory shoots it to death. The incident scares off investors of the project and the scientist is told to put all his apes to sleep. But he finds out that the reason the female chimp became so aggressive was because she tried to protect her newborn. The scientist takes the baby chimp home and raises it as his own child. He very quickly understands that the little one is extraordinarily intelligent and that it has genetically inherited this from his mother.

For the coming years the chimp, Caesar, is raised in the most loving home, with a lot of compassion and understanding – kind of the perfect home environment it seems. But as the chimp grows older he feels that he doesn’t fit in. He is a very troubled youngster and one day he confronts the scientist, through sign language, and asks him where he comes from. “Who is Caesar?” he signs. The scientist first says “I am your father”, but sensing Caesar’s dissatisfaction with the answer, takes him to his lab and shows him the laboratory to tell him about his mother. The monkey is perplexed by hearing about his conception story and is left with a lot of questions, an emptiness, a sense of not belonging that eventually turns into anger. The scientist “dad” is also troubled but insists that “he belongs with me, with us”. But it is too late. New technology with honorable intentions, and an upbringing full of love has nevertheless created an angry activist, a revolutionary that seeks justice and vengeance for having been stripped of family, freedom and dignity…


The M.Guy Tweet

10.26.2011 4:26 PM

Marriage Media
Week of October 10, 2011
Courtesy of Bill Coffin

 

1. ‘Living Together,’ Unmarried? Put a Ring on It!, The Washington Post

Sociologists often speak of how generations are shaped by what they are denied. The millennial generation has seen and felt the heartbreak surrounding divorce. Many of us were denied a stable home environment, so we struggle with commitment — not out of rebellion, but simply because we did not see “till death do us part” modeled by our parents. That doesn’t mean we don’t want it, though; being deprived of seeing many examples of long-lasting, unconditional love has actually caused us to desire it deeply.

2. All the Single Ladies, The Atlantic

Recent years have seen an explosion of male joblessness and a steep decline in men’s life prospects that have disrupted the “romantic market” in ways that narrow a marriage-minded woman’s options: increasingly, her choice is between deadbeats (whose numbers are rising) and playboys (whose power is growing). But this strange state of affairs also presents an opportunity: as the economy evolves, it’s time to embrace new ideas about romance and family—and to acknowledge the end of “traditional” marriage as society’s highest ideal.

3. Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce, The Brookings Institution

There are two popular misconceptions about divorce: that it happens only after a long process of misery and conflict, and that once they file for divorce, couples don’t entertain the idea of reconciling. But the majority of divorced couples report average happiness and low levels of conflict in the years prior to their divorce, and new research shows that in at least 10 percent of divorcing couples, both spouses are open to efforts to reconcile–and in another 30 percent, at least one spouse has interest in reconciliation. This research also suggests that the high divorce rate in the U.S. is not only costly to taxpayers and harmful to children, but that a substantial number of today’s divorces may be preventable.

4. Can’t Buy Love: Materialism Kills Marriages, ABC News

In a survey of 1,700 married couples, researchers found that couples in which one or both partners placed a high priority on getting or spending money were much less likely to have satisfying and stable marriages.

“Our study found that materialism was associated with spouses having lower levels of responsiveness and less emotional maturity. Materialism was also linked to less effective communication, higher levels of negative conflict, lower relationship satisfaction, and less marriage stability,” said Jason Carroll, a BYU professor of family life in Provo, Utah, and lead author of the study.

5. Helping Marriages Go The Distance, National Public Radio

The new book, ‘I Do … Every Day: Words of Wisdom for Newlyweds, and Not So Newlyweds’ offers common sense advice and surprising tips for maintaining healthy marriages. Journalist Cynthia Bond Hopson and Reverend Roger Hopson write from experience — they’ve been happily married for 35 years, with two children and four grandchildren. They speak with host Michel Martin about their book, marriage and advice for couples.

6. ‘Family Structure’ Said to Trump ‘Wanted’ as Key to a Child’s Future, The Washington Times

But what do children think about being created to live in a home that is intentionally missing a parent? Little research has been done on this, but many young adults who were conceived by anonymous sperm donation believe “it is wrong that they were intentionally denied knowledge of their father’s identity,” said Ms. Marquardt, who directs the Center for Marriage and Families at IAV.

7. Marriage Matters: Secrets of a Strong Economy, Sturgis Journal

Most recently this overlap is highlighted because of a new report “The Sustainable Demographic Dividend: What Do Marriage and Fertility Have To Do With the Economy?” issued by the National Marriage Project at University of Virginia. Specifically, seven economic sectors – child care, life insurance and personal insurance, household products and services, health care, food, home maintenance and services, and pets and toys — experience growth directly linked to people getting married and having children and also suffer when marriage and fertility rates fall.

For more, see this site.


‘All Children Matter: How Social and Legal Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families’

10.26.2011 12:44 PM

COLAGE has released a new report:

Public discussion about American families often assumes the nation is largely made up of married heterosexual couples raising their biological children. Yet less than a quarter of all U.S. households fall into this category. Today’s children may be raised by grandparents, single parents, stepparents, aunts, uncles or foster parents. Their parents may be married or unmarried; they may be heterosexual or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

Unfortunately, public policy has not kept up with the changing reality of the American family. Indeed, our laws and discourse largely ignore the roughly two million children being raised by a parent or parents who are LGBT. They also ignore children in other family configurations, such as those with unmarried heterosexual parents. As a result, many Americans are unaware of the  ways in which unequal treatment and social stigma harm the millions of children whose families do not fit into a certain mold.

Full report here.

Among the report’s recommendations are:

Legally Recognize LGBT Families

1. Pass comprehensive parental recognition laws at the state level to fully protect children in LGBT families. State parentage and adoption statutes should allow joint adoption by LGBT parents, recognize LGBT parents using assisted reproduction in the same manner as heterosexual parents, and provide avenues such as second-parent adoption and de facto parenting to allow children to gain full legal ties to their parents.

2. Legalize and federally recognize marriage for same- sex couples. Marriage for same-sex couples would help strengthen legal ties of the entire family, including those between a child’s parents and between the child and his or her parents. Married LGBT parents would be recognized as legal parents upon a child’s birth, and would also have access to joint and stepparent adoption. If recognized by the federal government, marriage would also allow accurate representation of LGBT families for the purposes of safety net programs, tax credits and deductions, inheritance and Social Security protections, immigration sponsorship and other benefits; and make it easier to obtain family health protections, including health insurance,  medical decision-making, visitation and family leave.

3. Provide pathways to immigration and citizenship for binational LGBT families. This should include legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act, which would add the category “permanent partner” to the list of family members already entitled to sponsor a foreign national for U.S. immigration. states should permit the filing of a wrongful death suit by any individual who can show economic dependence on a deceased person.

I do believe that families headed by gay or lesbian persons experience discrimination. I also know that those families are and will continue to be raising children and those children need social and legal support. Indeed, all children do matter.

But I’m not sure the recommendations above are the best way to go. I do agree that gay and lesbian persons should have access to adoption — whether as a couple adopting a child, or being able to adopt the child of their partner (what is called second parent adoption). In most states the laws on the books now allow this, but some states do not, and there are certainly legitimate questions about whether the existing laws are practiced fairly. So, I support adoption rights. I would also caution gay and lesbian persons that the adoption process is onerous for anyone. It is set up to seek to protect the best interests of the child. There are questions about your home life, your sex life, your finances. Your contacts are interviewed. This happens to heterosexual persons too, and they too find it often intrusive. So if it feels intrusive, it might not necessarily be because you’re gay. Read More


It’s Not Funny

10.26.2011 11:16 AM

Or, be kind.

A letter writer to the NYT yesterday wrote eloquently about the coarse treatment felt by adopted persons when they try to tell their stories or seek rights that any other person has.

It reminded me so much of what I have seen when donor conceived persons try to tell their stories or seek rights that any other person has. I have witnessed people telling donor conceived persons that they should be glad to be alive, that they shouldn’t hurt their parents’ feelings, that without this technology they wouldn’t be here, that they’re mentally unbalanced, that they’re crazy to think that some guy who went into a little room with a dirty magazine and a cup should mean anything to them.

In a world in which theoretically all of us have a right to tell our stories, here is a category of people who for some reason are not supposed to be heard. I have never understood the callousness and often cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy, with which they are treated. (Think about it — none of us would exist if our mother and father had not conceived us. But how many of us, when we have something to say about a shortcoming of our parents or the way we were raised, have someone tell us, hey, get over it, without them you wouldn’t be here, why do you think some guy who [insert explicative]‘ed your mother should mean anything to you, you’re crazy.)

In the broader culture, the plethora of sperm donation jokes are cruel to anyone touched by this issue and it all only seems to be growing as a subject for comedy now that the process itself is more out in the open. For all these reasons one of our recommendations in My Daddy’s Name is Donor was this:

It’s not funny. Some donor conceived people make crass jokes or use black humor as a coping mechanism. That is their right. But just as it is not appropriate for people who are not part of a particular ethnic minority to make jokes about that minority, it is not appropriate for those who are not donor conceived to laugh about donor conception. Jokes about turkey basters, masturbation, and incest are off limits. If in doubt, don’t say it.

And here is the wonderful letter to the NYT yesterday:

To the editor: …“Mea (Totally Sincere, if Overdue) Culpa,” by James Collins (Op-Ed, Oct. 17), while tongue in cheek, was still so offensive that I hardly know where to begin. As an adult adoptee, I have listened to all the reporting about Steve Jobs’s death with weariness. We adoptees are by turns curiosities, objects of derision and seemingly another species that some people just do not comprehend. Read More


NOM’s Unethical Swiping of Obama Rally Photos

10.26.2011 3:33 AM

The website “Good As You” points out that NOM has swiped photos from Obama for President rallies and used them on their website as if they were photos of NOM rallies. (Here and here.)

Let’s face it — this sort of error is funny. (And I’m sure people on all sides get caught making funny errors now and again.)

But it’s also bothersome, ethically. Aside from the obvious deception regarding the size of the crowds at NOM rallies, isn’t it wrong to use a photo of people who, it’s pretty safe to guess, overwhelmingly oppose NOM’s goals?


Timing Is Everything

10.25.2011 5:47 PM

My Father's Daughter

Karen posted a link here to go to Anderson Cooper’s clip about babies being sold to the highest bidder. I watched that video this morning, and wondered about the outrage that these people in the clip showed.

I didn’t wonder about their outrage because I thought they were over-reacting.

I wondered about it because when you get down to it, there’s only one thing that differentiates this situation from a typical surrogacy situation – the time line.

In a typical situation, the intended parents pick out the egg, pick out the sperm, and pick out the woman who will carry the baby, then the woman gets pregnant, has the baby, and everyone is happy.

In this case, the intended parents come in at the end.

So it’s a matter of timing.

I do think that this is a terrible situation, but aside from the fact that this is illegal while it’s perfectly legal to rearrange the order of events, why are people getting their panties in a wad? If any of them thought this through logically, they would see that their anger and disgust should be directed at the entire industry that profits from the commodification of people, no matter when the intended parents come into the picture.

Come on, people, don’t let a timeline dictate how you see what is right and wrong!


Is It Possible to Have Three Biological Parents? Part II

10.24.2011 7:25 PM

In a post below I raised the idea that a child conceived through egg donation, carried in another woman’s womb (whether that woman is called the surrogate or the mother), with the egg fertilized from a man called either the sperm donor or the father, may have three biological parents. A lively discussion with commenters taking various sides on the question ensued. I encourage you to look at what they said.

Now I’d like to share another way that a child right now may have three biological parents:

…As we have seen in earlier discussions about the possibilities for reproductive cloning or same-sex procreation, exploding new intentional family forms are not just dependent on what adults are doing in the bedroom or even in the courtrooms. The hard sciences are also on the front lines and old-fashioned methods such as artificial insemination are just the beginning.

In September 2005, British scientists were granted state permission to create three-parent embryos. Researchers from Newcastle University soon announced that they had created human embryos from the combined DNA of one man and two women, and that they hope to be able to offer the option to couples within three to five years. The medical reason for their research lies with the fact that some genetic diseases are passed through mitochondrial DNA—that is, through the DNA that floats around the nucleus of a fertilized egg cell. By placing the nucleus of one woman’s egg inside the egg of another woman who is not a genetic carrier of the disease, the scientists hope such research will allow women in danger of passing a genetic disease on to their child to have the chance to bear healthy children of their own. The resulting child would carry the DNA of three persons—the nuclear DNA of one woman, the mitochondrial DNA of another woman, and the DNA found in the man’s sperm cell.

Here we enter one of those not-uncommon gray areas in the biotechnological revolution. Clearly, no one wants children to be born bearing painful and often deadly mitochondrial genetic disorders. Figuring out a way to help couples avoid passing such disorders on to their children seems like a laudable goal (especially given that such a treatment is surely preferable to routine testing and aborting of embryos that appear to be disabled). But what happens when these technologies move from being used to prevent genetic disorders and are employed instead to satisfy adult desires to have babies in unusual ways? There are already pressures for social and legal recognition of multiple-parenting unions. It seems plausible that people in at least some of these unions might wish to bear a child in which all three people are the genetic parents. If we already let adults make myriad procreative decisions under the banner of reproductive rights, why deny them this option?

Want to know more? See the new report One Parent or Five: A Global Look at Today’s New Intentional Families, starting on page 44.

 


‘After the Wedding, What is Marriage For?’

10.24.2011 2:08 PM

I have this piece at HuffPost Weddings today.


What’s a “Bothy”?

10.24.2011 3:14 AM

Read One Parent or Five, starting on page 48, to find out.


Let’s Be People and Not Patients

10.21.2011 3:34 PM

This past week has seen a flurry of conversation on end of life care.

First off, the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports) was scrapped because, after lengthy studies “Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said she had concluded that premiums would be so high that few healthy people would sign up…[and thus is] financially unsustainable.”

This is most likely true and perhaps the CLASS act was not the best response to meet the future needs of long-term care for our soon to be massive aging population, but it was something.

Building the case for why something like the CLASS act is desperately needed, aging and care giving reporting pioneer, Jane Gross, wrote an insightful opinion piece last Sunday on the deficits of Medicare, which are and will reach far beyond the financial.  She echoes the prophetic words of Dr. Joanne Lynn, who has been writing for years on how Medicare was created in the 60’s for elderly who no longer exist.

Why? People no longer die of the same diseases.  What once were acute diseases are now chronic diseases.  Even in my lifetime, a disease like HIV/AIDS evolved from an immediate death sentence to a chronic illness.  Miraculous.  However, I live in an impoverished state and see how even with medical advances, a lack of educational and financial resources can mean that people die of diseases that they could have lived with for years.

In addition to different disease trajectories, people have fewer offspring to care for them and the offspring they have may live hundreds of miles away.  If you do not have a daughter, who lives near you, the odds are you will be out of luck if you become seriously ill.  Long term care was not an issue in the 60’s, so Medicare didn’t and doesn’t pay for that.

But, times have changed.  Gross writes:

“In the last year alone, and this list is far from complete, here is what researchers have found both useless and harmful, according to leading medical journals:

• Feeding tubes, which can cause infections, nausea and vomiting, rarely prolong life. People with dementia often react with agitation, including pulling out the tubes, and then are either sedated or restrained.

• Abdominal and gall bladder surgery and joint replacements, for those who rank poorly on a scale that measures frailty, lead to complications, repeat hospital stays and placement in nursing homes.

• Tight glycemic control for Type 2 diabetes, present in 1 of 4 people over 65, often requires 8 to 10 years before it helps prevent blindness, kidney disease or amputations. Without enough time to reap the benefits, the elderly endure needless dietary limits and needle sticks.

Yet Medicare, which pays for all of the above, does not, except in rare instances, pay for long-term care in a supervised, safe place for frail or demented old people, or for home aides to help with shopping, transportation, bathing and using the toilet.”

So, it seems that Medicare believes that we are entitled to be treated as patients but not as humans. Read More


Is it Possible to Have Three Biological Parents?

10.21.2011 2:11 PM

I think so.

Since about 1985, it has been possible for a woman to conceive and carry a pregnancy conceived with another woman’s egg. When the woman carrying the embryo not conceived with her own egg intends to be the mother, we call her the “mother” and the other woman the “egg donor.” But when the woman who gives the egg intends to be the mother, we call her the “mother” and the woman carrying the embryo conceived with that egg the “gestational surrogate.” (It is confusing. Women who do the exact same things are legally determined to be the “real” mother or “just” the egg donor or surrogate, depending on how the adults in question wish it to be.) Either way, the result is an embryo and—ultimately—a child conceived from one woman’s egg, fertilized by the sperm of a man (who we call either the “father” or the “sperm donor”), and carried in another woman’s womb.

In part as a result of these innovations, scientists are learning a great deal about how the process of gestation affects the genetic development of a fetus. Apparently, during gestation the embryo’s genetic markers are switched on and off in reaction to the environment experienced in the womb. In other words, the woman carrying the embryo physiologically shapes the resulting baby’s DNA, even if her egg was not used to conceive the child, and thus she can be said to be a biological mother of the child as well. (And in fact, in the U.S. most state statutes say that the woman who gives birth to a child is the biological mother—these are among the statutes that must be circumvented to allow for the legalization of surrogacy).

Read more, starting on page 45 of One Parent or Five: A Global Look at Today’s New Intentional Families.

UPDATE: Also see Part II of this post.


On the Possibility of Reconciling

10.21.2011 1:56 PM

At HuffPo, Jennifer Lai interviews Bill Doherty, co-investigator of our new Second Chances report.