The following is our most recent submission to Anonymous Us:
Mom of a donor egg child
I read carefully many of the entries of the site trying to understand how some donor children experience their conditions of conception and birth. These feelings serve me as an egg donor mother to think about how to tell my daugther her coming into the world. She is two years old now but I started telling her as soon as she was born.
I am in favor of non-anonymous donation and I truly regret I haven’t had the chance to thank the donor woman that allowed my daughter and I be together in this life.
True, we do not share some of the genes (all human beings share 95% of our genes, actually). The genes she inherited from the donor (sorry, not biological mother) will determine, partially, her external appearance.
Are family roots significant? Of course, including the genetic origins but they are not the only relevant source for one’s identities — identities that are multiple, varied and change over our life course. But family roots are also those related to your up-bringing so I hope I can transmit to her not to be overly obsessive about genetics.
Categories: Motherhood, My Daddy's Name is Donor, Reproductive Technologies, The Future of Parenthood
Since according to her genes don’t matter and we all share 95 percent of our genes anyway, I look forward to her adopting her next child out of foster care and hope she’ll share that good news at AnonymousUs.
I think she sounds like she is in denial and doesn’t want to believe that her child might grow up and think that her biological mother is her mother, too.
And, as Elizabeth Marquardt points out, it is hard to get across the message that genetics don’t matter if you don’t adopt.
What’s sad is that this mother really wants to be a mother and has perhaps been told that this was a fertility treatment, not a form of adoption.
And that the kid is going to get the message that she is not biologically related to her mother, but she better not call her biological mother anything but donor.
Pregnancy and child birth are pretty significant too, aren’t they? You got to admit that when people send “baby photos” of a year old Chinese baby that they just adopted, you have to pretend to be equally excited as if you’d seen them pregnant for months. So if you want that full experience, and not the stigma of a baby thief, you have to adopt an embryo and go through all the le maz classes with everyone at work.
Well, I AM really excited when a friend sends me photos of the child they adopted…
and, yes, pregnancy and child birth are a very big deal.
http://moms.popsugar.com/Viral-Adoption-Announcement-28043250?utm_source=popsugar_network&utm_medium=email&utm_term=28043250&utm_campaign=popsugar_network_email_forward_to_friend&utm_content=link_2
“I think she sounds like she is in denial and doesn’t want to believe that her child might grow up and think that her biological mother is her mother, too.”
YUP. Words matter.
And one of the many reasons why I find this practice so viscerally offensive and problematic.
And why I support Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis defense of marriage – which has NOTHING to do with homophobia, bigotry, hate, racism, thinking women shouldn’t vote etc. etc. etc. – regardless of what the law says. There is truth and sanity here. Words and definitions matter.
Redefining marriage however has EVERYTHING to do with redefining the importance of mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. etc. (as in biological/genetic/sperm/egg/1 man/1 woman).
If I used the terms of those like you who want to redefine marriage I could easily turn the tables and call you a bigot against children and the natural family.
Lets not go there.
…and IF we decide the most important question involved in the redefinition of marriage debate is: what do we think about gay people? A lot flows from that.
Funny, I always thought of the proponents of so-called “traditional” marriage as the proponents of relativism; their definition of what marriage is and has been throughout history flies all over the place, selectively choosing and ignoring the entire picture. It’s religious when speaking to a religious audience; redefined as secular (albeit still religious, as it is based in theological understandings of something called “natural law” as opposed to a science-based understanding of nature and the cosmos) when speaking to mixed- or non-religious audiences. It ignores the rather lengthy—albeit “traditional”—history of polygamy and concubinage; it ignores the common, everyday practice of men fathering children outside of marriage while being in “traditional” marriages.
It claims to support marriage as existing in order to foster procreation—except when it doesn’t. It fully supports the right of mixed sexed couples to choose not to procreate via birth control, sterilization or abortion. It’s totally ok with postmenopausal women, cancer survivors, or any other infertile people marrying. It lauds the remarriages of the multiple-divorced, including those who marry their affair partners.
The only consistency? That same-sex partners not marry. And yet, we’re not supposed to think of that as special-pleading, or worse, bigotry.
@Karen, “redefining marriage” happened well before same-sex marriage was legal in the US. When we discarded coverture and put wives on an equal footing with their husbands, that changed millenia of what marriage was all about. LaLubu is right; proponents of “traditional marriage” (meaning, opposite-sex-only marriage) seem to cling to a peculiarly sanitized, modern version of Christian marriage and try to retcon that back across history.
Regarding the woman in the original post, I’m surprised how quickly everyone has jumped over her statement that she thinks anonymous donation is a bad thing, and equally surprised that her statement that genetics is not the only important factor is being read as ‘genetics don’t matter’. Presumably it would be terrible for this woman to adopt a foster child, since that would be feeding the pretense that anything except genes matter.
Sorry, Karen, could you be more specific? Civil would be nice, too, but I’ll settle for specific.
This does not make sense to me. David B.’s “doubt sweet doubt” thread as well. It’s seems a bit…confusing. Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis defense of marriage however makes clear sense.
I’ve read it. It makes no sense to me. I’m not just saying that to be argumentative; I mean it actually doesn’t make sense to me, as in their description of what marriage is doesn’t actually describe marriage in my lived and observed experience. They are describing an alternate vision of what marriage could be, if everyone else believed as they did. They aren’t describing what marriage actually is in the lived experience of the vast variety of couples who are and or have been married.
Karen, that’s why I’m always talking about boundaries. You have a vision of marriage. I have a vision of marriage. Everyone typing on these posts has a vision of marriage. And if civil marriage is legal for all? Everyone goes home happy. Everyone gets to implement the vision of marriage that works best for their life. It’s the same principle as the separation of church and state—we don’t all have to believe the same, and everyone gets to practice the faith of their choosing (or not!), while not being able to impose their faith upon others who believe differently.
Public lives. Private Lives. Boundaries. They work.
Question: why are comments disappearing?
This all goes back to definitions, words and why they matter. Like the woman in this post (we are commenting on) who insists on calling her child’s genetic mother a “donor”…like my father who asked me why I now searched for a “mere sperm donor”… redefining mothers and fathers to dna donors, redefining marriage from man/woman/sperm/egg/natural family is viscerally offensive to me. I don’t care how the laws redefines it, I find truth, clarity and meaning Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis defense of marriage.
La Lubu: Comments that violate the civility policy are being deleted. And since quite a few in recent hours have violated the policy, quite a few are being deleted.
Karen:
If you are concerned about redefinition of words, then you should not accept George, Girgis, and Anderson’s contrived definition of marriage. On their view, marriage is a comprehensive union i.e. a volitional, emotional, and biological union that requires monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. Many societies of the past did not accept this definition. Polygamous marriages were often considered marriages which means that monogamy and exclusivity were not a requirement. In many societies, emotional union was not an essential part of marriage. The definition George et al. have created has nothing to do with “traditional marriage,” the way it was defined throughout history (if there even is such a thing). It is a “redefinition.”
I understand. You don’t want your experience erased from the picture. I can understand that.
But redefining marriage to mean “husband and wife with children” (because yes, that is a redefinition of marriage, if we take the historical view) is also viscerally offensive to many people; people who also don’t want their lives and experiences to be erased. Using tortured descriptions like “organic bodily union” to include or exclude who has a “real” marriage is…..well, you can call it a lot of things, but the kindest thing I can think of is “unscientific”.
And that’s really the baseline for me. George/Sherif/Anderson’s argument for marriage is ultimately an argument of faith—either faith in the religious grounding their argument is based on, or faith in their abstraction of that argument as secular. They are not speaking to empirical facts. I could take their argument a lot more seriously if they didn’t have all these exceptions-to-the-rule to encompass mixed-sex marriages that don’t contain any or all of the elements they consider as constituting a marriage. Mind you, I’d still disagree, but at least I could respect a certain consistency. Their inconsistency speaks strongly against their argument.
Anyway. I don’t see any resolution or compromise to an argument from faith other than adopting a boundary between the private and the public spheres. Civil marriage for all (public sphere) with private spheres (religious and other nonpublic spheres) choosing what constitutes marriage in their sphere.
(Using tortured descriptions like “organic bodily union” to include or exclude who has a “real” marriage is…..well, you can call it a lot of things, but the kindest thing I can think of is “unscientific”.)
This.
George’s P in V theory is particularly silly. Like crafting a complicated multi part argument proving left-handed ginger’s are intrinsically incapable of fighting fires and so must be excluded by the state from jobs as fire fighters. It just makes no sense if you don’t accept the original premise.
It’s not that surprising really. Philosophical and religious arguments are very much the same in necessitating acceptance of some basic premise on faith. If you don’t accept the fact it’s turtles all the way down the argument is meaningless.
LaLuba wrote:
Thank you thank you thank you for those words. That means much.
I just cannot and will not accept a dictatorship of relativism because the law tells me so.
I respectfully agree to disagree with you.
Sorry, I misspelled you tag. I meant La Lubu.
I’m totally down with karen on the not redefining words thing because its lying because it is propoganda. You know a liar when they start redefining words to mean something else.
But I look at the term marriage and there is nothing in the civil code about those people being mothers and fathers being married definately should not give anyone any authority to just be the parent of their spouse’s children in fact glomming marriage and children into one thing like that freaking terrifies me. Being a parent has NOTHING to do with being a spouse and its time that everyone acted like it. You don’t have a ‘right’ to screw yours spouse either they can say no and should especially if their spouse thinks its their ‘right” to have sex with them. It’s your ‘right’ to have sex with consenting adults spouse or not. Marriage is nothing more than a property contract – the rest is all what we make of it our heads and personal lives so frankly like there is no reason a man can’t be a secretary there is no reason why a spouse can’t be the same sex its just money and property.
Everyone is making this be about kids but adults are not marrying kids here they are marrying other adults. What you need to do is start stuffing step parenthood in the faces of the couples who think they can draft on their spouses kids just because they are married. Get rid of marital presumption once and for all if straights can’t have it then gays and lesbians would have to deal with being step parents like they really are and so would straight step parents. Boo hoo living life in the roll that matches reality and not getting to tear apart someone else’s reality for kicks
Mont are you the one who use to say for studying so much I had not learned anything? Cause I’ve still been studying.
I think calling step parents parents and parents donors is whacked redefinition.
But I do think a married man is married whether its to a woman or a man because in reality he’s on the hook for his spouses debts and can take half of everything acquired during the marriage. its real
Two points: I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with. The way you phrased it makes it sound as if you might be accepting of the law recognizing civil marriages for both same-sex and mixed-sex couples while reserving the right in your personal view to not recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. If that is the case, we don’t really have a disagreement. Granted, we would still disagree on a personal level about what constitutes a marriage, but on the public level we wouldn’t.
Now let’s unpack that phrase “dictatorship of relativism.” You have a habit of accusing persons who have a different belief system than yours of being “relativists”, and your use of the term leads me to believe that you are defining it as either not holding any beliefs or as holding all belief systems to be equal in value. Is this the case? Are you defining relativism in either of those terms, and if so, which? (or both? Seriously—-not a rhetorical question; I’m not just responding to hear myself type. I want to get this right.)
I want to be completely clear: I have beliefs that cannot be proven empirically. That are taken on “faith”, although I don’t use that terminology because from what little I remember from Philosophy 101 that I took about a zillion years ago, “faith” (as in leap of) isn’t how I approach it—it’s more like “feeling”, an emotional connection and an experiential connection that is real to me, even though it can’t be proven empirically. Kinda like “love”—none of us can prove that empirically, either. I’ve never been able to take a “leap” into the unknown; I have to have a tangible connection, even if the only “tangible” part is in my neurons. (as I’ve said before—I’m not the person for abstractions.)
I also do not believe that all belief systems are neutral. Nope, not at all. I have more affinity with some belief systems than others, and I reject even others wholesale and outright. So, I think it is a fair statement in light of that fact that I (a) have beliefs and (b) do not believe in the basic equality of all belief systems, that I am (c) not a relativist.
Now let’s get back to that “dictatorship” part of the equation, because I truly believe that I am advocating for the complete opposite of dictatorship—freedom. I talk a lot about boundaries; both the boundary between the public and the private, and one’s more personal boundaries. Keeping boundaries is how we as social animals who nevertheless have private lives, and as a heterogeneous society who have many different practices, worldviews, histories, cultures maintain our peace with one another.
Those boundaries are crucial. Without them we would (and do) descend rapidly into violence, war, oppression…..without them our humanity is diminished. We cannot thrive without boundaries. It is those boundaries that allow “me to be me” and “you to be you”, and thus bring our best selves forward into the whole.
Allowing for multiplicity to thrive in the public sphere isn’t “dictatorship”, but rather its opposite—freedom. The freedom of people to be themselves, holistically themselves—while preserving the boundaries that honor differing views. It allows no one to dominate the public sphere and impose restrictions upon the intimacies of others’ lives. Intimacies that are critical to human lives—who one loves, what one believes, how one explores and expresses one’s creativity, that sort of thing.
Right now, with a federal practice of not recognizing same-sex marriages, there is a literal dictatorship over same-sex couples, and same-sex persons who would like to be part of a committed couple, and over religious institutions who do recognize such couples as constituting a marriage. They are prevented—by law—from being able to do so. The law is currently enshrining and mandating inequality, and exercising dictatorship in doing so.
Conversely, look at how differences in civil law and religion are handled with regards to divorce: the Catholic Church is free to deny marriage to previously divorced persons without State interference, while the State is free to issue civil marriages to the previously divorced without Church interference. See—no dictatorship! Same-sex marriage can be effortlessly handled the same way.
I understand your concern over third party donor conception. I’m willing to listen to those concerns. I do not see it as applying primarily to same-sex partnerships, but instead to mixed sex partnerships. I think it is grossly unfair to same-sex couples to prohibit them from marriage on the fear that they might use third-party donation, when the clear evidence points to mixed sex couples being the most likely to use it (and the most likely to not be truthful about it when they do).
Wow, that’s quite a lot to unpack. But THIS…
…is essentially what I am saying.
So much has been written in rebuttal to what follows in your comments, I really can’t add any more.
With the exception to the use of the words/definition of “third party donor gametes” for anyone. There is no such thing. It’s two parties (parents) that make up a child/a person, a human being. A mother and a father. And there is no ethical right for society to condone an industry that intentionally creates children with a built in loss. In my opinion, society needs to promote procreation and responsibility – men and women taking responsibility for their own sperm and egg when combined to create a new life.
This entire debate (including marriage) from my perspective is rooted and grows from this ethical premise.
The practice of “donor/surrogacy” should be, needs to be overhauled and critically challenged in our culture.
I think the Catholic Church got it right. But we’ve moved so far away from this from a civil marriage perspective, I fully understand your reasoning behind neutering marriage. It makes perfect sense. I just don’t agree on principle.
“The practice of “donor/surrogacy” should be, needs to be overhauled and critically challenged in our culture.”
BUT I don’t see this happening because it is so politically loaded. Who’s willing to enter this Lion’s den/Shark tank? Most who have tried in the past have learned that if you do you will be eaten alive. And that’s a big problem. Can we give them (those who do in the future) more support?
“Who’s willing to enter this Lion’s den/Shark tank? Most who have tried in the past have learned that if you do you will be eaten alive. And that’s a big problem. Can we give them (those who do in the future) more support?”
Like:
Alana – “2013 Winners and Losers”
And Jennifer Lahl of the CBC Network
I just cannot and will not accept a dictatorship of relativism because the law tells me so.
But you don’t have to. Neither does anyone else who views a legal marriage as outside the boundaries of what they recognize as a legitimate marriage. It is perfectly lawful for an orthodox Jew to sit shiva for a son who marries a Gentile, for example. A church that forbids remarriage after divorce is entirely free to refuse to administer a sacrament for married people to a congregant who divorced her husband to marry her lover.
But it isn’t “neutering” marriage. That’s inflammatory and dismissive terminology. If I enter an egalitarian marriage with a man, neither of us becomes a null gender just because we don’t adhere to patriarchal norms. I have lesbian friends who have married in Iowa (and pointedly have not entered civil union in Illinois because of its unequal status—though they will marry in Illinois if same-sex marriage is approved by the legislature); they would be livid if anyone suggested that their marriage was “neutered” or that they themselves were “neutered” or somehow less than full women because of their sexual orientation. The same with gay male friends of mine—they aren’t “neutered”.
@Karen says “In my opinion, society needs to promote procreation and responsibility – men and women taking responsibility for their own sperm and egg when combined to create a new life.”
And your opinion is supported by the state….
See Adams v Howerton (“[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the [human] race…”) and providing (“stability to the environment in which children are raised.”)
@Karen writes “The practice of “donor/surrogacy” should be, needs to be overhauled and critically challenged in our culture.”
Nah, it should be banned since there’s abundant evidence it’s harmful. Not to mention it creates a legal mess. There was a recent story that a Kansas man sperm donor now has to pay for child support:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-sperm-donor-pay-child-support/story?id=18102778
Or you can check out this story:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/mother-of-all-battles-as-sperm-donor-fights-for-child-20110524-1f2h7.html
zztstenglish,
I’m not commenting here anymore but since you directed this comment to me, I’m responding:
If the state supports that why does it condone the practice of intentional abandonment via “donation”. How is this ever going to be outlawed?
RE: The Kansas city “sperm donor” case – Not sure if this is the outcome from that case or not but it doesn’t support any state (societal) backing of sperm/egg (father/mother) procreation responsibility:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/kansas-supreme-court-marci-frazier-lesbian-custody-_n_2760179.html
This, all of this, is an ethical issue that the law simply cannot fix. All I can do at this point is simply walk away from the table and stand firm on principle. Legally, *our* chair has been removed and we are uninvited.
I am speaking a different language and going my separate way. Principle is all we have.
@Karen – Well, I’m not sure if I should respond or not but….
1. “How is this ever going to be outlawed?” Good question. This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed the law contradicting itself. In my opinion, I think the law hasn’t caught up to the science yet.
2. As for that article you sent me, it just shows the claim same-sex marriage leads to negative feedback on opposite-sex couples is not a theoretical boogeyman. Two examples of changes in the law that happen immediately when same-sex marriage is introduced are changes in the definition of parent from natural parent to legal parent and changes in definition of the presumption of paternity to the presumption of parentage.
There are a number of cases that have involved custody, birth certificates and visitation in which the courts have ruled private relationships trump biological connections. In Mason v. Dwinnell, the court awarded shared custody of a child to the lesbian partner over the biological mother’s objection. In Griffiths v. Taylor, two men in a domestic partnership who had contracted with a surrogate mother sought to remove her name from the birth certificate and have their names placed on the certificate. Here we see the effects of same-sex marriage….
zztstenglish,
I know. That’s why I have to just walk away. Thank you for all your good comments here and challenging the new normal. God bless.
@Karen writes “I am speaking a different language and going my separate way. Principle is all we have.”
BINGO !!!
zzsstenglish says: “There are a number of cases that have involved custody, birth certificates and visitation in which the courts have ruled private relationships trump biological connections. In Mason v. Dwinnell, the court awarded shared custody of a child to the lesbian partner over the biological mother’s objection. In Griffiths v. Taylor, two men in a domestic partnership who had contracted with a surrogate mother sought to remove her name from the birth certificate and have their names placed on the certificate. Here we see the effects of same-sex marriage….”
What zzstenglish does NOT say, but should is that neither of the cases he cites has anything to do with same-sex marriage. One case is from North Carolina; the other is from Texas. Neither Texas nor North Carolina permit same-sex marriage.
More scare-mongering from the deadenders.
zztstenglish writes:
“In my opinion, I think the law hasn’t caught up to the science yet.”
There really isn’t any science behind it at all. It’s all just about a manipulation of words and social politics/”rights”. Everyone comes from one man (a father) and one woman (a mother) – perhaps also a gestational mother for a few months. But that’s it. The rest is a political and social experiment/manipulation. Walking away now.
@Jay – Except it has happened in jursidictions where same-sex marriage is legal.
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus_alberta/story.html?id=88698fa8-1a9f-40e0-b2d7-0c6d46562bac
A quote (“D.H. is hoping to have parts of the legislation rewritten to provide more rights to gay fathers who are not biologically related to the children they have opted to raise.”)
Now, since you’ll probably say that doesn’t apply to the United States, then see Goodridge v Department of Public Health where it was re-defined to presumption of parentage.