Skip

How many offspring can/should one man have?
September 14, 2011 12:08 AM   Subscribe

Sperm Donors: Limited or Limitless? And who should decide? Is it an ethical question, a biological question, a social/political question, an economics question, or something all about money?
posted by emhutchinson (36 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Things like this make me look for similarities. Bizarre scramblings of the genetic code. My favorite anagrams of "Sperm Donor" are: Modern Pros, Nerd Promos, End Mrs Poor, Ponder Mr So, and either Prod Sermon or Drop Sermon.

So many children of the same initial letters. All different, yet in some way the same.
posted by twoleftfeet at 12:39 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


The "ethical" link doesn't really address that question.

“Experts don’t talk about this when they counsel people dealing with infertility,” Ms. Kramer said. “How do you make connections with so many siblings? What does family mean to these children?”

Since when has "family" necessarily include a close genetic relationship to someone?

This practice is not widespread enough, and probably will never be widespread enough, to cause concerns about diseases to be real. It is a theoretical problem. Other than that, this boils down to people making ethical claims because they are "freaked out". A lot of things freak people out and are perfectly ethical (gay marriage being one). I have yet to see someone make a convincing case that using someone's sperm more than 5 or 10 times is ethically questionable, assuming that they understood the possibility of that occurring. "Ew!" is not an ethical argument.

It sounds like the donors were given a number based on some sort of "average" number of times sperm is used, and when they found out their sperm was used more than that, they freaked out. Guess what? That's the way statistics works. Sometimes you end up in the tail of the distribution. It doesn't mean you were lied to, or that anyone did anything "reprehensible".
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 12:51 AM on September 14, 2011 [7 favorites]


Find a glass / I'm spraying fast and loose / with all that jizz!
Right in there / is where you store my juice / all that jizz!
When I start, I'm never gonna stop /
Not when it's paying twenty bucks a pop /
I need no wife / to make a brand new life / with all - that - jizz!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 1:47 AM on September 14, 2011 [9 favorites]


Sperm Donors: Limited or Limitless?... Is it an ethical question, a biological question, a social/political question, an economics question

Sorry Babe, but it's really more of question of having to go to work early tomorrow and I'm really tired and we already did it twice. So "limitless", not so much.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:59 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, like the Burnistoun Royal Bank of Sperm?
posted by scruss at 4:17 AM on September 14, 2011


In both adoption and assisted reproduction, there is a person intimately involved who is considered more a product than a person with rights, the child. That child grows to be an adult who may have emotional and medical needs to know their biological heritage. There should be no anonymous adoption, and no anonymous donation of genetic material. Records should be kept, and they should be accessible to the adoptee or donor child when they are adults, and to the parents raising them if a need arises in childhood.

The adults involved in adopting or creating the child from both sides have to deal with this. There should of course be legal safeguards in place about custody. The fact is the child has a different genetic heritage which cannot always safely be ignored . Ethics discussions need to remember the child and his or her needs, not just the needs of the bio parents, adoptive parents,donors, or the commercial enterprises enabling assisted reproduction or adoption.
posted by mermayd at 4:29 AM on September 14, 2011 [7 favorites]


That child grows to be an adult who may have emotional and medical needs to know their biological heritage.

Why would the "emotional" need of an offspring trump the "emotional" need of a donor to remain anonymous? And what is this emotional need, beyond curiosity? I am curious about many things, but that doesn't give me the right to know these things.

Also, what part of their biological heritage (that is important to this debate) is not contained in the offspring's genes, or records collected after the donation (prenatal care, etc)?
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 4:45 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, what part of their biological heritage (that is important to this debate) is not contained in the offspring's genes, or records collected after the donation (prenatal care, etc)?

Epigenetics.
posted by DU at 5:08 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


I would be interested in more information on the families who vacation together with nothing else in common but donated sperm kids. That is so bizarre it sounds like a (fake) reality television show.

Also what are the attributes of the guys whose sperm is in the highest demand? That sounds like an interesting ask metafilter.
posted by bukvich at 5:42 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]



Why would the "emotional" need of an offspring trump the "emotional" need of a donor to remain anonymous?

If a donor wishes to remain anonymous, they have the choice of simply not donating. The child does not have the choice to not be conceived and born.
posted by the young rope-rider at 5:57 AM on September 14, 2011 [7 favorites]


Epigenetics

Yeah, that's why I said "important to this debate" since a person's epigenetics have the same properties as genetics for the purposes of this debate; looking at your own body is (potentially) more informative than looking at your parents. Now, I'm aware that at this point we don't understand the cause many genetic or epigenetic disorders, but this will take a matter of decades to correct. To make a sweeping claim that no one has the right to be anonymous because one's "biological heritage" is too important is to ignore the fact that you can determine your biological heritage by looking at your own body. At this point, a donor need only disclose family history of diseases, and that's it. In the near future, even this will be unnecessary.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 5:59 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


> GallonOfAlan

That's about 1,400 donations. Way to go!
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:08 AM on September 14, 2011


Oh boy, Sperm Banks! That's where I'm a Mongol!
posted by straight at 7:11 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


How many offspring can/should one man have?

17 million men in Central Asia share a pattern of Y chromosomes within their genetic sequences which suggest a common ancestor - Genghis Kahn!

He took sperm donation to another level.
posted by three blind mice at 7:16 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


[A few comments removed. Do not ALL CAPS derail threads, please.]
posted by cortex at 7:22 AM on September 14, 2011


*I don't usually do trigger alerts but I'm going to go ahead and give one for this, but I think it is very relavant to this discussion.*

When I was a child I was terrified of men coming in my room and forcing me to have orgasms. Like a very specific fear at say five. I have no memory of any such thing actually happening and both of my adoptive parents were the only people around when I was a small child. They were dedicated gentle empathetic kind people in every way. It is of course possible I was being regularly abused, but I also think it's possible this fear came from somewhere else.

When I met my biological mother and got to know her over time, I discovered that she was being sexually and physically abused by her father throughout her early childhood and her memory of those events is scattered and impaired.

In studying pavlovian fear responses we are finding more and more that ingrained fear responses have a biological and epigenetic component and that these components can be passed on to offspring. I would NEVER have been able to put the pieces of this together as much as I have (though it's still a mess and confusing and uncertain even as it is) without her sharing these feelings and experiences which parellel my own experiences and fear responses TO A T.

I think much more can be passed on in our genes than we currently understand now and I thank everyone here who is standing up for the well being of adoptees and donor concieved human beings in caring about how these kinds of decisions may affect their well being.
posted by xarnop at 7:51 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


Steve Jobs' biological father chooses not to make contact. This was widely reported. Adoption used to be a way to match children without families to families without children, and there were a lot of children without families. Access to birth control was limited or non-existent, abortion wasn't safely available and there was severe social pressure on women to not have children unless married. Genetic information wasn't widely useful. So adoption was a pretty good resolution to a problem.

Now, children want to know more about their biological identity, for their health, or for personal reasons. So it's complicated, and complicated problems don't usually generate simple solutions. I've heard more than 1 woman, dealing with fertility issues, berate the fact of women who abort, or young women who keep their babies(i.e., not berate individuals). I don't think anybody is owed a child, so that distresses me, as it supports the concept of babies as a commodity that mermayd points to.

Look at the problems with international adoptions. Babies do get stolen to satisfy comparatively wealthy parents, and profit less than scrupulous agencies. Governments in those countries tend to profit from fees, and the country gets jobs and money from the process.

The desire of an adopted/sperm-donor child to know their biological parent(s) is rather more than idle curiosity. And the contract was usually signed 20 or so years earlier, when times were different. And, *the child never signed the contract.* Every adopted child or parent I know that has met their biological relation has had an interesting experience, many positive, some weird. If some guy gets contacted by 207 biological kids, he's barely going to have time to meet them. Still, the benefit seems to outweigh the risk. Note to men: be careful what you share.
posted by theora55 at 7:59 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


and there were a lot of children without families.

I know the point you're making, and I agree with it, but: there weren't as many children without families as it looked like. There were a lot of children whose families were coerced or threatened into giving them up via the social pressure you mentioned. Those families still existed, though, even if they were just the baby and the baby's mother, and that coercion ruined a lot of lives.

I think kids deserve to know the circumstances of their conception. I feel like that right trumps any rights or wishes the parents might have to keep those circumstances a secret, but I haven't thought every avenue of that through. I have a lot of friends, both IRL and online, who have children conceived through donor gametes, and AFAIK all of them are planning on being open with that information in age-appropriate ways. But I can understand the impulse to bury it under the rug, even if I don't agree with it.
posted by KathrynT at 8:13 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


If we are going to resolve problems NOW by saying "in the near future they won't be problems" then I'll just solve it even more directly: in the near future, no one will need sperm donations.
posted by DU at 8:29 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Multiple regression showed that maternal stressful events during pregnancy significantly predicted ADHD behaviors in offspring, after controlling for autistic traits and other confounding variables, in both males (p = 0.03) and females (p = 0.01). Similarly, stressful events during pregnancy significantly predicted autistic traits in the offspring after controlling for ADHD behaviors and confounding variables, in males only (p = 0.04). In conclusion, this study suggests that PNMS, in the form of typical stressful life events such as divorce or a residential move, show a small but significant association with both autistic traits and ADHD behaviors independently, in offspring at age 2 years, after controlling for multiple antenatal, obstetric, postnatal, and sociodemographic covariates."

Studies like this make me think that parental history may be much more valuable to the health and self knowledge of all human beings than we give credit.
http://www.frontiersin.org/developmental_psychology/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00223/full

"Exposure to adverse environments during early development is a known risk factor for several psychiatric conditions including antisocial behavior and personality disorders. Here, we induced social anxiety and altered social recognition memory in adult mice using unpredictable maternal separation and maternal stress during early postnatal life. We show that these social defects are not only pronounced in the animals directly subjected to stress, but are also transmitted to their offspring across two generations. The defects are associated with impaired serotonergic signaling, in particular, reduced 5HT1A receptor expression in the dorsal raphe nucleus, and increased serotonin level in a dorsal raphe projection area. These findings underscore the susceptibility of social behaviors and serotonergic pathways to early stress, and the persistence of their perturbation across generations."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021842
posted by xarnop at 8:44 AM on September 14, 2011


Sperm donation is weird in another way, it is a sort of socially sanctioned adultey, or perhaps a socially sanctioned polygyny. In the Western culture polygyny is a huge 'no no', in nearly all cultures adultery is anywhere from frowned upon to a death penalty offense. It is pretty weird, the woman who has a sexual relation with a man solely to get pregnant and never see the guy again is not behaving respectably, the man she is married to would feel pretty upset. Or turn it the other way, egg donation and surrogacy, that as well is a way of having a second wife, a very complicated way of doing so.
Both means of achieving a pregnancy have the terrible vice of being impersonal.
If there is any merit to the concept of epigenetics,perhaps that might have consequences for the child?
I think totally closed adoption is an idea of the past. Totally closed donations of genetic materials bothers me on an even mire elemental level.
At least with two people having an adulterous relationship, two people had to look each other in the eye and make the decision to get naked. What you see with secrets is a lot of unhappieness.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:07 AM on September 14, 2011


If we are going to resolve problems NOW by saying "in the near future they won't be problems" then I'll just solve it even more directly: in the near future, no one will need sperm donations.

The claim was that anonymous sperm donation was in principle bad because a person has the right to their biological history. My response to this was that anonymous donation does not preclude understanding one's biological heritage. The past, present and (very plausible) future progress in understanding the causes of disorders is evidence for that fact. If relevant information can't be had by tests at this point, then it can be given by the donor at the time of donation, if known.

Let's turn this around, because this conversation has thus far assumed that the information can only flow one way, which is not true. Say a child gets a genetic test, and finds out that they have a risk factor for some disease. Does this morally obligate the child to find their parents, even if the child wishes to remain anonymous (after all, there are good reasons why a child might want to remain anonymous)?

If the child has a moral right to the parents' medical history, it stands to reason that the parents (and siblings!) have a right to the child's medical history.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 9:08 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh and all those women Genghis Khan raped, or married, or kept as concubines at least knew who he was.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:11 AM on September 14, 2011


Well there is also the issue of cruelty. As an adoptee I find it cruel that adults would not only plan to create an offspring they don't give a shit about and never want to know or care about--- but that systemically the child is never allowed to express their pain in experiencing that.

I believe that is cruelty to children. The child is never allowed to express their need for their biological parents because everyone else decided for them it was not a real need.

Studies on cross fostering of animals are finding that the cross fostering process itself causes biological alterations throughout the lifespan. These studies put the control group through a similar staged exprience to the removal process but returned the offspring to the biological mother.

"In conclusion,
cross fostering at birth induced a number of behavioral and
physiological alterations in mice, particularly in males.
These findings should be carefully evaluated when applying
cross fostering procedure to laboratory animals."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2003.00059.x/pdf

"Unexpectedly, in female gestational controls cross fostering per se reduced nucleus accumbens dopamine secretion to 0.07 mg/kg nicotine. These investigations suggest that gestational nicotine exposure could modify the acute reinforcing effects of nicotine in adolescent rats, whereas early postnatal stressors, (e.g., cross-fostering) may affect nicotine-induced reinforcement in female but not male adolescents."
http://www.nida.nih.gov/about/organization/ICAW/development/developmentfindings504.html

"It would also appear that cross-fostering per se may not be without significant effects on maternal behaviors (Maccari et al, 1995) and has been reported to reduce baseline and nicotine-stimulated DA secretion in the nucleus accumbens (Kane et al, 2004)."
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n7/full/1301277a.html

"No cross-fostering was performed, since cross-fostering, per se, alters the behavioral and corticosterone responses to LPS [10] and [26]."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432810001798

"Conversely, although there was no strain difference between male in-fostered rats, cross-fostered male F344/N rats displayed a significantly greater corticosterone response to LPS than cross-fostered male LEW/N rats. Finally, body weight differences between in-fostered LEW/N and F344/N rats were reduced by cross fostering."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11777171

"Mice were divided into three groups: (1) biological group: pups born from ICR dams fostered by their original mothers; (2) in-foster group: pups born from ICR dams but adopted by other ICR dams and (3) cross-foster group: ICR pups adopted by C57 dams. ICR mice were subjected to behavioral experiments at the age of 8 weeks. Emotional behaviors in the cross-fostered mice were significantly altered in the open-field, elevated plus maze and forced swimming tests, as well as social interaction tests. However, the cross-fostered mice showed normal memory function in the Y-maze and novel object recognition tests. The contents of serotonin metabolisms were decreased in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus indicated the deficit of serotoninergic neuronal function by cross-fostering. These findings suggested that the early-life stress of cross-fostering induced long-lasting emotional abnormalities, which might be possibly related to alterations of serotonin metabolisms."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432808005986

"The process of cross-fostering profoundly affects cardiovascular and metabolic phenotype in mice."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2011.212324/abstract


There may be more real need here than we are giving credit and stomping children out for needing that in interest of parental desires is extremely cruel.

It is difficult to use animal studies to understand biological father presence/absence since humans have a much higher rate of paternal involvement in the lives of the young than many other species. However, as it comes to pass that we start torturing the poor non-human primates more with these kinds of studies, we will find out more about how the presence/absence of biological fathers affect primates with high paternal involvement. Will anyone use that to actually make better decisions for children? I hope so.
posted by xarnop at 9:42 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


Xarnop, are you sure the alternatives to things like sperm donation and adoption are better? If you cut out things like sperm donation, that just means that the infertile couples that would have had children that way don't - so the children just end up not existing at all. Cut out the possibility of adoption and you get a big spike in abortion rates, a few abandoned or murdered children, and a bunch of kids being raised (often in grinding poverty) by people who don't want them and hate the burden they represent.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


In case cross fostering wasn't clear: cross fostering is removing an infant at birth and placing it with another lactating mother. Studies have found that the cross fostering process does not seem to change maternal behavior toward a foriegn pup vs her own pups--- but that the seperation from the biological mother may affect infants more than we give them credit for. It is routinely assumed to be a "stressor" for animals and that we would ignore this in a species as emotionally complex, parent dependant and socially needy as human beings is an injustice to the infants involved.

Again humans as a species being more dependant on care and presence of BOTH mother and father--- pressuming there is not an innate biological need for the biorhythms and physiological familiarity of the biological parents would seem contrary to common sense of a species that involved to have both for thousands of years. Clearly we can survive without biological parents and make it in the world. We can also survive child abuse, poverty, parental death, sexual abuse and all kinds of things and children go through them and "turn out just fine" all the time. The more complex picture is that "turning out just fine" is not the same thing as "not being affected".
posted by xarnop at 9:55 AM on September 14, 2011


Mitrovarr, if we asked people with intentions to deliberately physically beat their children not to reproduce then we would be preventing the births of a segment of the population to. Is the solution to encourage people with the intent of abusing their children to have MORE children? Or RATHER to help guide people toward refusing to PLAN to physically abuse their children? I.e. get your ethics straightened out and your interests in line with their needs before you create them.
posted by xarnop at 9:57 AM on September 14, 2011


Like it or not, people make mistakes. Eliminating the harm mitigation strategy is just going to result in a lot more damage.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:12 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'll clarify more solution: I believe that children have the right to need the love and involvement of their biological parents. If the biological parents are dangerous/hateful/unsafe, then the child's need to be protucted trumpt their need to have the biological parents present and involved. If the biological parents are safe and healthy people, then the child's need to have involvement from them should be respected in adoption/divorce/and sperm donation situations. This includes open adoption, open sperm donation and dual parent involvement after divorce whenever it is possible.

The case of sperm donation is different than adoption because it involves preplanning the conception of an unwanted child. If you are planning to use sperm donation, plan to try to find a donor who is willing to be an involved family member in the child's life in someway and allow the child to have those needs. I have known lesbian families who have done this and it IS possible.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I know exponentially more real life biological mothers and fathers than you do, and I can say as fact that there is a fairly large percent of biological mothers and even some biological fathers who DESPERATELY wanted to keep their children. Just watch every mom who gives up a child on MTV's teen mom. do you really see women who don't want their children? These are young girls who sob hysterically as soemone else walks away with their child and their reasons ALL involve subjecting their own desire for their child (which appears to be ever present in these girls) and instead subjecting themselves to their own loss in the hope their child's life will be better.

There are women who hate their babies and can't wait to be rid of them, or who are genuinely happy to get rid of them through adoption, but they are in fact a smaller portion of the population of women who allows their newborns to be taken for adoption by "better" people.
posted by xarnop at 10:19 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.

What are the dangers of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers (aside from violating the obvious social taboo)?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:27 AM on September 14, 2011


Most people would be very upset to find out that they had unwittingly had sex with a biological sibling. It has happened in cases of adoption. If a sperm donor had hundreds of children in the same area and they met each other it could easily happen. If a child resulted they would have to live with that, plus the increased risk if both parents carried a tendency for genetic illness.

Mrgrimm, you say "what's the danger"? Would you want it to happen to you?
posted by mermayd at 12:59 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mrgrimm, you say "what's the danger"? Would you want it to happen to you?

Would I want it to? No. Would I care very much if it did (i.e. a relative stranger, not someone I treated as family)? No, unless it resulted in a child with serious health deficits, which is really what I was asking. How dangerous physically is 12.5% incest?

In case cross fostering wasn't clear: cross fostering is removing an infant at birth and placing it with another lactating mother.

Is that analogous to sperm donation? I don't think so. Cross fostering usually takes a child from one (animal) family after a live birth and gives it to another family.

...

The Sperm Bank of California limits donors to 10 families worldwide (each family may have multiple children). Whoa, they pay $100 a pop now! I only got $45.

FWIW, I met my 10 family limit in about 2 years of donations. I've never been contacted by any of my offspring yet.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:10 PM on September 14, 2011


I'm amazed at all the hand wringing about possible unknown half incest considering the rate of non paternity events.
posted by Mitheral at 7:21 PM on September 17, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is a bit late, but I'd like to add this to the conversation in case someone reads it. Xarnop, you came in here and dropped a bunch of references to the scientific literature, but not ONE of them is relevant to sperm donation. First of all, while rodents are excellent models for some research, the cross-fostering of rodents is an awful model of cross-fostering in humans. Humans have culture, and that's going to account for a whole lot of variance that is not accounted for in rodents. Second, those studies are about cross-fostering, which is relevant to adoption but not relevant to sperm donation.

Second, the studies regarding stress during development are not relevant to sperm donation. Even if it were, if you read the studies, the number of stress events only accounted for a miniscule 1% of the variance on top of the other factors! The only reason they could detect an effect this size is because they had a large sample size. It is charitable even to call this a "small" effect (as a statistical aside, tiny "significant" effects with large sample sizes should not be believed. Google "Lindley's paradox" for why). But anyway, it isn't even relevant to sperm donation.

Xarnop, don't just do searches for scientific research that you believe conforms to your biases and dump them into threads. It just adds noise to the conversation, and is an abuse of the scientific literature.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 3:06 AM on September 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


Philosopher dirtbike-- Yes I know. People don't give a shit how children-- in this case donor concieved/adoptees are affected by the decisions of the adults that create them with or without research right.

America is so swell. It's funny because when I give personal testimony everyone cries "you can't prove that it's just your story!" When I give research the cry is "you're cherry picking research".

The question is... IS anyone doing/reading the research on how donor concieved individuals are affected by this?

You're welcome, and I mean sincerely welcome to debate the validity of the research, but I think it's valid to at least look at it. You're absolutely right that the research I was pointing to is relevant to maternal seperation and not to fathers. But what about the numerous studies that have been done on donor concieved individuals feelings about their conception and life?

"Participant ratings of their conception were evenly distributed from “very good” to “very bad.” Most believed that identifying information should be provided to recipients and that they themselves would not participate in the practice of gamete donation."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028208048358

If anecdotes are not enough, then how can we get a clear picture of how this affects children?

Or is your point that you don't care how it affects children? Shouldn't we care? When deciding to spank/not spank--- yell/not yell---feed soda to three year olds/not feed soda to three year olds:
Isn't looking to research important? All bias/design flaw/problems with research should be addressed and all studies have them. But isn't it still helpful to look?
posted by xarnop at 6:02 PM on September 24, 2011


Also Philospher dirtbike, how do you think it feels to tell people that you feel like you have a connection with your own mother and father and to be told THAT'S NOT REAL.

How healthy is it for people to live this, a lived experience that the world claims is not scientifically possible EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO PROOF IT IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE.

How fair is it to leave a kid with all their traits unknown to them and then just a "Hey your biological parents just aren't that into you kid. Nothing personal. You just are worth anything to them."

Why?! How can you leave your own child out there and not care? How can you not care how they feel or if they laugh like you or if they.... need you?

I get that in our country everyone's daddy's leave and it's the way of things and we no longer care how that affects kids because we tell ourselves it doesn't affect us:

"I'm not one of those victims! I'm resiliant! I'm fine"

So you do the same thing to your kid and deny them the ability to have any feelings about it either, but it's fine. Maybe kids deserve to allow themselves to need their own parents.

I get that each human has their own feelings about their reality---- however there are some things we think are universal-- some kids survive getting beat and they do fine! They get degrees and work hard and they are fine! NOT VICTIMS! So why don't we say it's ok to beat all kids? Why do we pressume that kids don't need their dads, or that biological parents are automatically meaningless and that losing that connection won't harm people? We really don't have proof of that.

And a society that utterly shits down the sincere feelings of donor concieved adults and adoptees who DO have feelings and who DO share them outloud with cries of "Nu-uh all the other donor concieved/adoptees are fine! You're alone, you're a minority! You're making it up! You full of crap! Your feelings aren't real! You're pretending your feelings are real! You're a wuss! Be grateful! Who cares!" On and on and on and on....

How in the heck is it realisitic that any of us even feel like it's safe to HONESTLY ask the question "has this affected me?" when even being willing to ask the question comes with so much social attack?

Social message: DON'T ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESION BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE THIS COULD AFFECT YOU OR THAT YOU HAVE ANY REAL FEELINGS ABOUT IT. It's not possible and there's no good research done on it. Also we don't give a crap about doing better research because we already know it's not possible.
posted by xarnop at 7:04 AM on September 25, 2011


« Older Noah and the Whale: five years' time...   |   That’s when I lost my country Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post