‘Egg donors are business people not parents’

02.14.2012, 3:21 PM

So sayeth April Peveteaux at CafeMom:

…apparently, if you use a surrogate, or donor eggs, or made use of any type of donor in the process, your child is going to grow up and miss his “real” mother. Now you’re really pissed, huh?

Based on her study of children conceived through sperm donation, Marquardt makes the argument that children struggle with a parental loss when they don’t know their biological father, and this can lead to depression, delinquency, and addiction. She assumes the same with donor eggs, or surrogate moms…


13 Responses to “‘Egg donors are business people not parents’”

  1. Christopher says:

    I’ll go there. That statement is a) incorrect (donors are I’m fact biological parents whether it is acknowledged or not), b) borderline revolting, and c) nutty. I guess April really is the cruelest month.

  2. How do children feel, when they can clearly see the bond many of their peers share with their own biological parents, and then wonder why their own biological parent considered them no more than the consequence of a business transaction?

  3. @Christopher, Ha!

  4. Jeffrey says:

    hen wonder why their own biological parent considered them no more than the consequence of a business transaction?

    How do adopted children feel?

  5. Elizabeth marquardt says:

    Jeffrey please do at least a little research of your own into the large and complicated answer to that question. Advocates of SSM often make claims about how adoptees feel; perhaps you could be one of the first to actually acquaint yourself with the literature.

  6. Peter Hoh says:

    Jeffrey, while most adopted children know they weren’t sold, some do. You can read some stories from adopted children who know they were sold
    here and here:

    “We feel like trees without roots,” says María, who was put up for adoption in the San Ramón de Madrid clinic, which operated as a baby factory until 30 years ago.

  7. Peter Hoh says:

    Elizabeth, I urge you to reconsider your 9:46 comment. Not all who advocate for SSM “make claims about how adoptees feel.” Indeed, some of us have been quite supportive of your work in giving voice to adults who were adopted or conceived by donor sperm.

    In addition, some of those claiming to how adoptees (or the donor conceived) feel — or will feel — about their roots are not connected to SSM advocacy.

  8. Jeffrey says:

    Jeffrey please do at least a little research of your own into the large and complicated answer to that question. Advocates of SSM often make claims about how adoptees feel; perhaps you could be one of the first to actually acquaint yourself with the literature.

    Again, Elizabeth, I’m familiar with the literature. No need to be condescening about it. That’s why I made that point. It’s a very mixed bad and very complicated, not easily resolved by just outlawing adoption or putting up bans nor opening the floodgates wide open.

    I realize they are different situations–again, I’ve read the literature and thought about the practice–but they do provide us some perspective on how children born from surrogates and sperm donors will have a wide range of experiences that may not justify that bans you are proposing.

    This idea that children born from surrogates and sperm donors are in life-long existential crises and emotional cripples doesn’t jibe with your own research or what we know. So policy prescriptions that pretend we are responding to some human rights disaster involving millions of people who will be scarred forever seem irresponsible.

  9. Elizabeth Marquardt says:

    “So policy prescriptions that pretend we are responding to some human rights disaster involving millions of people who will be scarred forever seem irresponsible.”

    I’ve never said anything remotely like that. I say with donor conception the risks are higher that the offspring will suffer…so why do something like this on purpose?

  10. Jeffrey says:

    That’s a philosophical response, but what should the policy response be? A ban on ART–sperm donation and egg donation–is a policy remedy that doesn’t seem to be consistent with the alleged real or ethical harms.

  11. Mark Diebel says:

    Is it naivety that makes sophisticated people like the advocate of the donor business model above ignore entirely any thought of history and that adults in general want to know the truth about their own lives, society and world? Is it her primary focus on children whose needs are for nurturing? Why stop with children’s needs and not think of the fact children should become inquisitive adults and challengers of the social status quo?

    The thought isn’t on the children but the adults who want children. The commissioning adults are at the heart of her moral imperative. The adults that the children become is not even a glimmer…nor the kind of adults society wants.

    It is strange that a society that values openness in political decision making, disclosure and discovery in science and nature, would deliberately contribute to a system that creates concealment. If donor conception does not create concealment then make all access to identity open right now without discussion. Why the hiding and why is the burden to justify disclosure on those who favor it? Because, concealment is common sense. Why is it common sense in this context?

  12. marilynn says:

    What we need is a system by which all people with offspring are treated equal; all required to financially support their offspring to adulthood or relinquish their support obligation in a formal, court approved adoption that records and discloses the identities of all parties to each other and to the State and Federal government agencies charged with recording vital statistics for the protection of public health safety and welfare – so that there is never any question about who the child is or is not related to genetically.

    All people would then have an equal right to be supported by their genetic parents or be protected by their genetic parents relinquishing their responsibilities in a court approved adoption designed to protect their interests.

    So Jeffrey if you want to compare donor offspring to adopted people they were afforded some legal protection before landing in the hands of strangers.

    Court approved adoptions are intended to protect people’s offspring from being bought, sold trafficked or kidnapped. Court approved adoptions vet corruption and untenable situations. Court approved adoptions protect adopters from being coerced into accepting responsibility for a child they do not want or for accepting responsibility for a child that is not available for adoption. Court approved adoption protects parents from being coerced into relinquishing their offspring when they don’t want to and helps ensure those who do wish to relinquish can feel secure knowing that the adopting party has had back ground checks indicating that the child will be safe while in their care.

    If all people with offspring are treated equally all offspring will have equal rights. Its fair, its reasonable, its healthy and its within the realm of legal possibility. The only thing holding us back from giving these people equal rights is greed and its shameful.

  13. hello says:

    Elizabeth, Wow, you struck a nerve with Miss April.

    Jeffrey,
    Does highlighting a problem or issue automatically make someone responsible for solving it?