The very interesting Melanie Thernstrom.
January 2, 2011 12:12 PM Subscribe
Writer Melanie Thernstrom continues to be interesting. After a career spanning more than 20 years, and including well-received articles and books covering murders, suicide, and chronic pain, Thernstrom has published an article -- today on the cover of the New York Times Magazine -- describing her and her husband's choices and experiences in building a family through one husband slash sperm donor, one wife and mother with infertility, one egg donor, and two women serving as gestational surrogates. The internet weighs in.
Graduating with the highest honors from Harvard in 1986, Thernstrom's senior thesis about the well-publicized murder of her best friend Bibi Lee earned her a publishing advance of $367,000. The Dead Girl, published in 1990, generated controversy and praise. She went on to write an article and book about Sinedu Tadesse, a Harvard junior from Ethiopia who murdered her Vietnamese roommate and then committed suicide while living at Dunster House in 1995.
Thernstrom's 2010 book The Pain Chronicles, review here, exposed her own experiences with pain and became a bestseller.
This MeFi predicts that the Twiblings will dominate the very accomplished Thernstrom's reputation for some time to come.
Graduating with the highest honors from Harvard in 1986, Thernstrom's senior thesis about the well-publicized murder of her best friend Bibi Lee earned her a publishing advance of $367,000. The Dead Girl, published in 1990, generated controversy and praise. She went on to write an article and book about Sinedu Tadesse, a Harvard junior from Ethiopia who murdered her Vietnamese roommate and then committed suicide while living at Dunster House in 1995.
Thernstrom's 2010 book The Pain Chronicles, review here, exposed her own experiences with pain and became a bestseller.
This MeFi predicts that the Twiblings will dominate the very accomplished Thernstrom's reputation for some time to come.
Personally, I might check out this website before making it happen technically with a varied team of fertile people and scientists: http://adoptuskids.org/Child/ChildSearch.aspx
Plenty of American kids are without families right now.
posted by knoyers at 1:23 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Plenty of American kids are without families right now.
posted by knoyers at 1:23 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Thanks, palmcorder (<3 heart warms). I wrote rhymer off list, but yes, I have no connection to Melanie Thernstrom, and have not read her work before today. I was struck by the combination of weird-to-me-and-must-be-very-expensive reproductive choices, Thernstrom's candor about those choices, and the strong public feelings (primarily negative) about such choices.
And then when I realized that Thernstrom has this whole prior life as the author of the book about Bibi Lee (I live in the Bay Area where Lee was murdered), with the crazy $$$ book advance and the negative reaction of the family and some friends, and also her personal disclosures about living with chronic pain -- all of this is sort of far more than enough drama and accomplishment for one person.
But then this piece -- about using an egg donor and two simultaneous (!!) "gestational surrogates" -- this piece takes an already colorful life and places it into a whole new realm.
For what it's worth, I count myself among the ranks of someone who would never make the choices made by the author, and personally believe in the importance of parenting existing children on this earth.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 1:28 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
And then when I realized that Thernstrom has this whole prior life as the author of the book about Bibi Lee (I live in the Bay Area where Lee was murdered), with the crazy $$$ book advance and the negative reaction of the family and some friends, and also her personal disclosures about living with chronic pain -- all of this is sort of far more than enough drama and accomplishment for one person.
But then this piece -- about using an egg donor and two simultaneous (!!) "gestational surrogates" -- this piece takes an already colorful life and places it into a whole new realm.
For what it's worth, I count myself among the ranks of someone who would never make the choices made by the author, and personally believe in the importance of parenting existing children on this earth.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 1:28 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
Plenty of American kids are without families right now.
And more power to you. As long as people aren't having litters I have no judgements on their reproductive choices. This seems fine and normal to me and has probably already happened to people who are a little less "look at me!."
posted by cjorgensen at 1:30 PM on January 2, 2011
And more power to you. As long as people aren't having litters I have no judgements on their reproductive choices. This seems fine and normal to me and has probably already happened to people who are a little less "look at me!."
posted by cjorgensen at 1:30 PM on January 2, 2011
Sounds complicated. Whatever happened to finding a baby on the porch, like in the good old days?
posted by jonmc at 2:02 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by jonmc at 2:02 PM on January 2, 2011
Seriously, there's no need to suggest or recommend adoption to people who are considering their reproductive options, or to slyly condemn people who chose something other than adoption. It's not like Thernstrom or anyone else who made similar decisions was completely unaware that adoption was an (often equally expensive, often equally time-consuming, often equally-problematic) option.
posted by muddgirl at 2:04 PM on January 2, 2011 [17 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 2:04 PM on January 2, 2011 [17 favorites]
i was somewhat the kinda same position when i was 24 years old, i had my heart set on marrying and having two boys(bear-cubs) to complete my dream of becoming a good husband and having a complete family. i was engaged and ignoring the kids part to a diabetic (who flatly said, i cant have any kids), she broke off the whole thing, the only two weeks till the wedding. I felt like i was run over by a truck, confused and heart broken. One half a year later, i met my lovely wife (our marriage is 42 years and still going), have two great boys, Michael and Matthowie. I look back and say i did the right thing in the stage of marriage. life is not smooth, but good things happen along that road. No, i'm not going to write a book on the pain anf joys of my road.
posted by tustinrick at 2:05 PM on January 2, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by tustinrick at 2:05 PM on January 2, 2011 [10 favorites]
As long as people aren't having litters I have no judgements on their reproductive choices
yes you do, they are clearly stated the word "litter".
personally believe in the importance of parenting existing children on this earth.
I agree but also support this women and her husbands choice. If her methods are legal and ethical, what judgement is reached other then her public persona.
posted by clavdivs at 2:09 PM on January 2, 2011
yes you do, they are clearly stated the word "litter".
personally believe in the importance of parenting existing children on this earth.
I agree but also support this women and her husbands choice. If her methods are legal and ethical, what judgement is reached other then her public persona.
posted by clavdivs at 2:09 PM on January 2, 2011
Huh. Interesting to find that she has such a writing career before that. It was the only article in this week's NYT Magazine that I read in full, but I was still left restless and a little sad afterwards. The author, like many people dealing with well-meaning attempts to help while they weather difficult situations, seemed to judge and reject so many of the people she came into contact with in her quest.
Lately I have been increasingly weary of reading this kind of personal revelation in the magazine (especially the ones that formed the bulk of the end pages over the last few years). I don't know why, because it doesn't bother me at all when I read that kind of thing in someone's blog or chat about it with a friend, or when someone on Metafilter mentions it in a couple of paragraphs. It's sort of like being cornered at a party by a bore.
posted by Peach at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2011
Lately I have been increasingly weary of reading this kind of personal revelation in the magazine (especially the ones that formed the bulk of the end pages over the last few years). I don't know why, because it doesn't bother me at all when I read that kind of thing in someone's blog or chat about it with a friend, or when someone on Metafilter mentions it in a couple of paragraphs. It's sort of like being cornered at a party by a bore.
posted by Peach at 2:20 PM on January 2, 2011
One half a year later, i met my lovely wife (our marriage is 42 years and still going), have two great boys, Michael and Matthowie.
That's sweet but you misspelled mathowie.
posted by nicwolff at 2:22 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
That's sweet but you misspelled mathowie.
posted by nicwolff at 2:22 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
It's incredible how insensitive people are about infertility. Just because someone happens to be cursed with infertility doesn't give them a special obligation to save the world's children. Just the same as if you have an unwanted pregnancy, you don't have an obligation to bear the child because there are infertile people out there.
If you feel called to adopt or give up a baby for adoption, you should absolutely do it and it's a wonderful choice to make. If you don't—whether you are fertile or not—doesn't give you the right to judge other people who don't want to make that choice. And even if you do adopt, you have to be aware that other people may make different and yet perfectly valid choices.
Whenever people start talking about fertility treatment, it is amazing how quickly strangers say "Have you considered adoption?" as if the thought never crossed people's minds, they just blindly decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatment. What people don't consider:
1) there are very few adoptable infants in the U.S., very many fewer than there used to be pre-Roe v. Wade and pre the destigmatization of single and teen motherhood.
2) about a third of kids who are adopted out of orphanages after age 3 or so will have serious, lifelong problems that may make them impossible to manage for most families. another third will have serious problems that are difficult but can be handled with lots and lots of love, attention and resources. another third will be totally fine. being in an orphanage as an infant is traumatic inherently— this is why the U.S. has no more infant orphanages and why every country that has done research on this has decided to use foster care instead.
Babies need someone devoted just to them— they can't be cared for by staff on shifts who have dozens of other babies to care for. every transition between caregivers except for infant adoption is inherently traumatic. most kids are resilient but...
it's almost impossible to tell in advance which babies will be OK after that experience and it's perfectly reasonable to feel like the risk of parenting a child who may never be able to live in his or her own is one that you are not willing to take if it's not your genetic child.
3) inter-racial adoptions are fraught. many children brought up in these situations later feel cut off from their culture and identity. again, it's truly a wonderful thing to do— but you have to be prepared to deal with strong feelings about colonization and exploitation etc.
4) there are many international adoptions that are seriously shady. many "orphans" have family too poor to raise them. some are actually kidnapped or born for pay. If you are going to pay someone to have a child for you, may as well do it through surrogacy etc., above board without stealing someone's possibly wanted kid.
5) If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent. For example, China rules out anyone in any of the categories I listed explicitly. If you fall into any of those categories and really don't want to open yourself up for extensive social services scrutiny, that's yet another reason you might decide against adoption and yet be a perfectly good person.
Bottom line: unless you've struggled with infertility for a few years, you have no clue about this stuff typically and if you want to make people struggling with fertility issues happy, ask them about what they're doing, don't try to fix their problems by suggesting adoption. Believe me, it's not like people don't think about this stuff obsessively if they are stuck dealing with it.
posted by Maias at 3:56 PM on January 2, 2011 [24 favorites]
If you feel called to adopt or give up a baby for adoption, you should absolutely do it and it's a wonderful choice to make. If you don't—whether you are fertile or not—doesn't give you the right to judge other people who don't want to make that choice. And even if you do adopt, you have to be aware that other people may make different and yet perfectly valid choices.
Whenever people start talking about fertility treatment, it is amazing how quickly strangers say "Have you considered adoption?" as if the thought never crossed people's minds, they just blindly decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatment. What people don't consider:
1) there are very few adoptable infants in the U.S., very many fewer than there used to be pre-Roe v. Wade and pre the destigmatization of single and teen motherhood.
2) about a third of kids who are adopted out of orphanages after age 3 or so will have serious, lifelong problems that may make them impossible to manage for most families. another third will have serious problems that are difficult but can be handled with lots and lots of love, attention and resources. another third will be totally fine. being in an orphanage as an infant is traumatic inherently— this is why the U.S. has no more infant orphanages and why every country that has done research on this has decided to use foster care instead.
Babies need someone devoted just to them— they can't be cared for by staff on shifts who have dozens of other babies to care for. every transition between caregivers except for infant adoption is inherently traumatic. most kids are resilient but...
it's almost impossible to tell in advance which babies will be OK after that experience and it's perfectly reasonable to feel like the risk of parenting a child who may never be able to live in his or her own is one that you are not willing to take if it's not your genetic child.
3) inter-racial adoptions are fraught. many children brought up in these situations later feel cut off from their culture and identity. again, it's truly a wonderful thing to do— but you have to be prepared to deal with strong feelings about colonization and exploitation etc.
4) there are many international adoptions that are seriously shady. many "orphans" have family too poor to raise them. some are actually kidnapped or born for pay. If you are going to pay someone to have a child for you, may as well do it through surrogacy etc., above board without stealing someone's possibly wanted kid.
5) If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent. For example, China rules out anyone in any of the categories I listed explicitly. If you fall into any of those categories and really don't want to open yourself up for extensive social services scrutiny, that's yet another reason you might decide against adoption and yet be a perfectly good person.
Bottom line: unless you've struggled with infertility for a few years, you have no clue about this stuff typically and if you want to make people struggling with fertility issues happy, ask them about what they're doing, don't try to fix their problems by suggesting adoption. Believe me, it's not like people don't think about this stuff obsessively if they are stuck dealing with it.
posted by Maias at 3:56 PM on January 2, 2011 [24 favorites]
But if a surrogacy takes place in a state with established legal protections in place, and governed by a proper contract, the carrier would have no claims to the child. (from the 'weighs' link)
I really have a problem with how dehumanised most discussions about surrogacy become. The woman who carried a foetus to term and gave birth to a baby is not simply a 'carrier' and I confess a huge amount of atavistic terror at having a newborn taken from it's 'carrier' because someone else paid for it and someone else (maybe) donated the egg. Newborns have an intrinsic connection with their mother, no matter how scientifically displaced the conception and genetic material may be. And no matter how watertight the legalities. Ignoring that bond seems not only integral to surrogacy, but vastly unfair to both the child and the 'carrier' and wilfully ignorant of the physiological bond between parent and child (and particularly so in the case of the physical nature of pregnancy and birth for women).
The whole industry of surrogacy disturbs me, no matter how much I identify with Thernstrom's desire to create a family of love out of modern fertility treatments and modern technological reproduction. But the limitation of family to mean 'two kids + partner of appropriate gender' is harmful in a lot of ways, which includes the exploitation of women via the class based options of adoption and/or IVF and/or surrogacy. Even if it gets expanded out to include 'other parental figures' it still prioritises the presence of children as the base for 'family' (and narrows that down to 'children you raise from infancy to adulthood') which is part of the concept that 'desire to have biological children' trumps almost every other ethical and moral decision and desire.
(and personally it was much like my feelings on adoption - they started out positive but after actually finding information other than press releases, turned less positive, then alarmed at the abuses and eventually disturbed.)
posted by geek anachronism at 3:58 PM on January 2, 2011 [4 favorites]
I really have a problem with how dehumanised most discussions about surrogacy become. The woman who carried a foetus to term and gave birth to a baby is not simply a 'carrier' and I confess a huge amount of atavistic terror at having a newborn taken from it's 'carrier' because someone else paid for it and someone else (maybe) donated the egg. Newborns have an intrinsic connection with their mother, no matter how scientifically displaced the conception and genetic material may be. And no matter how watertight the legalities. Ignoring that bond seems not only integral to surrogacy, but vastly unfair to both the child and the 'carrier' and wilfully ignorant of the physiological bond between parent and child (and particularly so in the case of the physical nature of pregnancy and birth for women).
The whole industry of surrogacy disturbs me, no matter how much I identify with Thernstrom's desire to create a family of love out of modern fertility treatments and modern technological reproduction. But the limitation of family to mean 'two kids + partner of appropriate gender' is harmful in a lot of ways, which includes the exploitation of women via the class based options of adoption and/or IVF and/or surrogacy. Even if it gets expanded out to include 'other parental figures' it still prioritises the presence of children as the base for 'family' (and narrows that down to 'children you raise from infancy to adulthood') which is part of the concept that 'desire to have biological children' trumps almost every other ethical and moral decision and desire.
(and personally it was much like my feelings on adoption - they started out positive but after actually finding information other than press releases, turned less positive, then alarmed at the abuses and eventually disturbed.)
posted by geek anachronism at 3:58 PM on January 2, 2011 [4 favorites]
I think they probably can afford nannies, given that they could afford this incredibly expensive process in the first place. one IVF = $17,000. She did five. Surrogates probably cost about $10-$15,000 each. Egg donor about the same. You do the math...
posted by Maias at 4:28 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by Maias at 4:28 PM on January 2, 2011
... about a third of kids who are adopted out of orphanages after age 3 or so will have serious, lifelong problems that may make them impossible to manage for most families. another third will have serious problems that are difficult but can be handled with lots and lots of love, attention and resources. another third will be totally fine.
Maias, I agree with much of what you've said in your comment, but what's your source of information for these statistics? They seem quite specific.
Otherwise, though: people who have not adopted should not be telling other people they should adopt. And people who have adopted have, in general, enough sense not to tell other people they should adopt either.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:41 PM on January 2, 2011
Maias, I agree with much of what you've said in your comment, but what's your source of information for these statistics? They seem quite specific.
Otherwise, though: people who have not adopted should not be telling other people they should adopt. And people who have adopted have, in general, enough sense not to tell other people they should adopt either.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:41 PM on January 2, 2011
Lately I have been increasingly weary of reading this kind of personal revelation in the magazine
Peach, I am totally with you on this. I'd much rather read someone reporting on this than using their own family as their source material. Blech.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:42 PM on January 2, 2011 [3 favorites]
Peach, I am totally with you on this. I'd much rather read someone reporting on this than using their own family as their source material. Blech.
posted by bluedaisy at 4:42 PM on January 2, 2011 [3 favorites]
Maias, they have a nanny who is quoted in the story. I still think that it is the only nonsensical decision that they made.
Having a nanny? For someone who has chronic pain issues, it seems like an excellent choice. Especially with twins.
Melanie was a college roommate of mine, so obviously I am not going to be impartial about this. Though in general, I agree that newspapers should have fewer personal stories by professional writers, and more reportage on the lives of people who aren't writers (and personal stories by people who aren't professional writers are often the best of all).
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:51 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
Having a nanny? For someone who has chronic pain issues, it seems like an excellent choice. Especially with twins.
Melanie was a college roommate of mine, so obviously I am not going to be impartial about this. Though in general, I agree that newspapers should have fewer personal stories by professional writers, and more reportage on the lives of people who aren't writers (and personal stories by people who aren't professional writers are often the best of all).
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:51 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
I read this piece this morning, and thought it was interesting (and well-written), but I was most struck by how weird it was to me that so many people apparently think the choices she and her husband made are weird, and that their family is weird. I don't think I've ever met anyone who had their children in this exact way, but I know way more people with kids who had them in "unusual" ways (adoption, donor sperm/egg, lesbian mommies/gay daddies, etc.) than not.
All the judgey shit being said about them is pretty gross.
posted by rtha at 5:58 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
All the judgey shit being said about them is pretty gross.
posted by rtha at 5:58 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
Bluedaisy, I've written extensively about child trauma— I'm the co-author of The Boy Who Was Raised As a Dog, with leading child trauma expert, Bruce Perry, MD, PhD. The exact statistic will vary depending on the study, the comparison group, how bad the orphanage was, whether the child has problems like fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and very importantly, how long the child was in the orphanage. But that's roughly how it seems to go with kids who have spent first three years or so in institutional care.
There was a randomized controlled trial (which would have been extremely ethically questionable if it wasn't the case that there weren't enough foster homes in Romania before the trial and if it wasn't the case that the government wouldn't believe that kids were hurt by orphanages without the trial) of foster care v. orphanage care that had, not surprisingly to anyone who knows anything about development, staggering results.
Here's another follow up of those same kids. 60% had stereotypical behavior (ie, repetitive movements like rocking, other types of self stimulation that can often be mistaken for autism). Kids placed in foster care earlier had higher IQs, more secure attachment, etc.
Rope rider, somehow I missed that. Personally, I think everyone with twins should have a nanny if they can afford it— or even better, lots of extended family and friends so that there's enough support for everyone to not go crazy.
I'm personally sickened by the fact that we give all this lip service to caring about children, all this judgment about people's parenting choices, etc— and we have no paid family leave and no support for high quality daycare and every family has to fend for themselves in terms of dealing with raising young kids. I wish there was a serious political movement to make this kind of stuff happen. I mean, we've got high unemployment and lots of kids not getting quality care whose futures could be greatly improved if we provided it...not to mention that if we gave more leave, people could spend more time with families and other people could make money filling in on those jobs...
posted by Maias at 6:06 PM on January 2, 2011 [11 favorites]
There was a randomized controlled trial (which would have been extremely ethically questionable if it wasn't the case that there weren't enough foster homes in Romania before the trial and if it wasn't the case that the government wouldn't believe that kids were hurt by orphanages without the trial) of foster care v. orphanage care that had, not surprisingly to anyone who knows anything about development, staggering results.
Here's another follow up of those same kids. 60% had stereotypical behavior (ie, repetitive movements like rocking, other types of self stimulation that can often be mistaken for autism). Kids placed in foster care earlier had higher IQs, more secure attachment, etc.
Rope rider, somehow I missed that. Personally, I think everyone with twins should have a nanny if they can afford it— or even better, lots of extended family and friends so that there's enough support for everyone to not go crazy.
I'm personally sickened by the fact that we give all this lip service to caring about children, all this judgment about people's parenting choices, etc— and we have no paid family leave and no support for high quality daycare and every family has to fend for themselves in terms of dealing with raising young kids. I wish there was a serious political movement to make this kind of stuff happen. I mean, we've got high unemployment and lots of kids not getting quality care whose futures could be greatly improved if we provided it...not to mention that if we gave more leave, people could spend more time with families and other people could make money filling in on those jobs...
posted by Maias at 6:06 PM on January 2, 2011 [11 favorites]
I don't think I've ever met anyone who had their children in this exact way, but I know way more people with kids who had them in "unusual" ways (adoption, donor sperm/egg, lesbian mommies/gay daddies, etc.) than not.
Me too! Including myself--my dear friends are fathers to two wonderful children who were once my eggs.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:18 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Me too! Including myself--my dear friends are fathers to two wonderful children who were once my eggs.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:18 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
i can't help but feel this is some kind of performance art piece :\
posted by liza at 6:43 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by liza at 6:43 PM on January 2, 2011
Perhaps pregnant teens who choose to adopt-out can be introduced to would-be adoptive parents long, long before the kid pops out. I'll bet it'd make a big difference to everyone involved.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:22 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by five fresh fish at 7:22 PM on January 2, 2011
I'm not gonna even begin to think I could make a moral judgment on how these people are living their lives.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:26 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 8:26 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
“I’m the only mother,” I’d correct people brightly, again and again. “Actually, there is no biological mother,” I’d sometimes add, in a tone that I hoped suggested Isn’t this interesting rather than You are an insensitive fool. “You see, both the donor and the carrier contributed biologically to each child, so the term cannot encompass this situation.”
Well, hang on. She can do what she wants, but I don't think she gets to define terms for the rest of us. She's not "the only mother," and she devalues gestation, birthing, and breastfeeding by suggesting they have no contribution to mothering. I know there are people in the world who feel about things very differently from me, but if I overheard a woman saying that about a baby I'd just grown and birthed and was lactating for, I'd want to slap her.
posted by palliser at 9:06 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Well, hang on. She can do what she wants, but I don't think she gets to define terms for the rest of us. She's not "the only mother," and she devalues gestation, birthing, and breastfeeding by suggesting they have no contribution to mothering. I know there are people in the world who feel about things very differently from me, but if I overheard a woman saying that about a baby I'd just grown and birthed and was lactating for, I'd want to slap her.
posted by palliser at 9:06 PM on January 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Palliser, that's the point. She DOES get to define terms for the rest of us -- at least when it comes to her own family and the people who took part in creating the family. You would likely never be in the situation you've described, because it seems like she spent a lot of time discussing the terms and relationships of this situation with those who were actually involved. If you were a part of this situation, she likely would have acceded to your wishes, much like she did with the women involved here.
But you're not.
posted by Madamina at 9:27 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
But you're not.
posted by Madamina at 9:27 PM on January 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
it's almost impossible to tell in advance which babies will be OK after that experience and it's perfectly reasonable to feel like the risk of parenting a child who may never be able to live in his or her own is one that you are not willing to take if it's not your genetic child.
This strikes me as a roundabout way of saying that being a parent via adoption is lesser than being a biological parent.
If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent.
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
posted by desuetude at 9:43 PM on January 2, 2011
This strikes me as a roundabout way of saying that being a parent via adoption is lesser than being a biological parent.
If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent.
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
posted by desuetude at 9:43 PM on January 2, 2011
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
You know, if I or anyone else said "Due to genetic issues in myself or my partner, we know that any biological child we'd have would have a 30-60% chance of having severe, possibly intractable issues, so we chose to adopt, despite the expense and uncertainty," nobody would ever quibble with the ethics of that statement. But saying "Knowing what we know about children adopted post-infancy, there's a 30-60% chance of that child having severe, possibly intractable issues, so we decided to pursue having our own biological children despite the expense and uncertainty," suddenly that makes them horrible people?
There are a lot of people right here in this thread saying that Melanie Thernstrom should have adopted. How many of you have adopted children? If you haven't, why not? Don't you share the same responsibility to "parent existing children on this earth" as the rest of us?
posted by KathrynT at 9:52 PM on January 2, 2011 [5 favorites]
You know, if I or anyone else said "Due to genetic issues in myself or my partner, we know that any biological child we'd have would have a 30-60% chance of having severe, possibly intractable issues, so we chose to adopt, despite the expense and uncertainty," nobody would ever quibble with the ethics of that statement. But saying "Knowing what we know about children adopted post-infancy, there's a 30-60% chance of that child having severe, possibly intractable issues, so we decided to pursue having our own biological children despite the expense and uncertainty," suddenly that makes them horrible people?
There are a lot of people right here in this thread saying that Melanie Thernstrom should have adopted. How many of you have adopted children? If you haven't, why not? Don't you share the same responsibility to "parent existing children on this earth" as the rest of us?
posted by KathrynT at 9:52 PM on January 2, 2011 [5 favorites]
What? I didn't say anything about them being horrible people. I was responding to the assertion that adoption is as expensive as fertility treatments and is limited to couples who pass the test of picture-perfect conservative ideal. This is only the case for couples who wish to adopt infants.
posted by desuetude at 11:00 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by desuetude at 11:00 PM on January 2, 2011
Just to clarify -- I was stating above my own personal perspective and lived choices (for me, being a foster parent) re "existing children on this earth." Which isn't particularly relevant. I found Ms. Thernstrom's choices to be really weird to me, but I also enjoyed reading her thoughtful and provocative article.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:00 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:00 PM on January 2, 2011
(I find most people's choices to be really weird to me..)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:01 PM on January 2, 2011
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 11:01 PM on January 2, 2011
As for this article, it's as tasteful as any article that goes into detail about one's extravagant purchase.
This was pretty much my reaction. I'm happy for her that her husband was able to sell his software company and finance the crazy-expensive fertility treatments. But the extremeness of it doesn't automatically make it a great story, any more than the story of building a house would be interesting simply because of its cost and complexity.
And not to dismiss the costs and uncertainties of adoption, but with the resources they were able spend on the IVF, surrogacy, etc, they could have also guaranteed healthy adoptions. Money buys many things, with healthy babies among them. That's not to say she should have done that -- it's her money and her choice.
posted by Forktine at 5:02 AM on January 3, 2011
This was pretty much my reaction. I'm happy for her that her husband was able to sell his software company and finance the crazy-expensive fertility treatments. But the extremeness of it doesn't automatically make it a great story, any more than the story of building a house would be interesting simply because of its cost and complexity.
And not to dismiss the costs and uncertainties of adoption, but with the resources they were able spend on the IVF, surrogacy, etc, they could have also guaranteed healthy adoptions. Money buys many things, with healthy babies among them. That's not to say she should have done that -- it's her money and her choice.
posted by Forktine at 5:02 AM on January 3, 2011
Perhaps pregnant teens who choose to adopt-out can be introduced to would-be adoptive parents long, long before the kid pops out. I'll bet it'd make a big difference to everyone involved.
This is how many infant adoptions already happen. Prospective adoptive parents advertise for teen moms.
it's almost impossible to tell in advance which babies will be OK after that experience and it's perfectly reasonable to feel like the risk of parenting a child who may never be able to live in his or her own is one that you are not willing to take if it's not your genetic child.
This strikes me as a roundabout way of saying that being a parent via adoption is lesser than being a biological parent.
No, that's absolutely not what it says. It says that people who aren't biological parents may be afraid to take that risk on in advance. If you fear that you aren't up to the sacrifice and don't have children, you may have perfectly reasonable fears about not being able to bond as well with an older, potentially special needs, nonbiological child. Adoptive parents get over this all the time, typically with wonderful results— those that don't, we don't hear about too often except in later memoirs of abuse and horrible cases of death and bizarre things like putting the child on a plane alone to Russia.
Don't you think it's better if people who know their limitations *don't* take on these extraordinarily vulnerable children?
posted by Maias at 6:04 AM on January 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is how many infant adoptions already happen. Prospective adoptive parents advertise for teen moms.
it's almost impossible to tell in advance which babies will be OK after that experience and it's perfectly reasonable to feel like the risk of parenting a child who may never be able to live in his or her own is one that you are not willing to take if it's not your genetic child.
This strikes me as a roundabout way of saying that being a parent via adoption is lesser than being a biological parent.
No, that's absolutely not what it says. It says that people who aren't biological parents may be afraid to take that risk on in advance. If you fear that you aren't up to the sacrifice and don't have children, you may have perfectly reasonable fears about not being able to bond as well with an older, potentially special needs, nonbiological child. Adoptive parents get over this all the time, typically with wonderful results— those that don't, we don't hear about too often except in later memoirs of abuse and horrible cases of death and bizarre things like putting the child on a plane alone to Russia.
Don't you think it's better if people who know their limitations *don't* take on these extraordinarily vulnerable children?
posted by Maias at 6:04 AM on January 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
ClaudiaCenter, thank you for making this a broader post about Thernstrom, and not just about the NYT article. The Dead Girl and Halfway Heaven are both remarkable books, suffused with empathy.
posted by grimmelm at 7:36 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by grimmelm at 7:36 AM on January 3, 2011
Motherhood is one of those topics MeFi doesn't do well. It's always a conflict between the hyper-protective and those who have criticisms.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:46 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by five fresh fish at 7:46 AM on January 3, 2011
It says that people who aren't biological parents may be afraid to take that risk on in advance.
But you don't get any guarantees with biological children, either.
Even if you follow all the appropriate steps and best practices during pregnancy and early childhood, there's still the risk of a highly special-needs child.
posted by desuetude at 8:00 AM on January 3, 2011
But you don't get any guarantees with biological children, either.
Even if you follow all the appropriate steps and best practices during pregnancy and early childhood, there's still the risk of a highly special-needs child.
posted by desuetude at 8:00 AM on January 3, 2011
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
It's not like it's a walk in the park to adopt an older child. They don't just drop the kid off at your doorstep. There's a process - a looong process; there are still costs (although not as significant as other methods); there are still screenings that in many states eliminate "unwholesomes" such as single parents, GLBT parents, polyamorous parents, etc etc etc; and there are still lots of cultural concerns - most "adoptable" children in the foster system still have close family members who are able and willing to care for the child (this article is tangential at best but I think it's pretty illuminating). And yes, I think it's perfectly valid for families to decide to minimize the risks of expensive home care - of course there's no way to completely negate that risk in the United States.
posted by muddgirl at 8:47 AM on January 3, 2011
It's not like it's a walk in the park to adopt an older child. They don't just drop the kid off at your doorstep. There's a process - a looong process; there are still costs (although not as significant as other methods); there are still screenings that in many states eliminate "unwholesomes" such as single parents, GLBT parents, polyamorous parents, etc etc etc; and there are still lots of cultural concerns - most "adoptable" children in the foster system still have close family members who are able and willing to care for the child (this article is tangential at best but I think it's pretty illuminating). And yes, I think it's perfectly valid for families to decide to minimize the risks of expensive home care - of course there's no way to completely negate that risk in the United States.
posted by muddgirl at 8:47 AM on January 3, 2011
Whoops, didn't realize that wasn't the full article. The subject was a pilot program in St. Louis called Extreme Recruitment.
posted by muddgirl at 9:43 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by muddgirl at 9:43 AM on January 3, 2011
Maias, thanks for clarifying. When you said, "about a third of kids who are adopted out of orphanages after age 3 or so will have serious, lifelong problems that may make them impossible to manage for most families," I didn't realize you meant kids who had spent their lives in institutional care. Many children spend a few years with families and then are placed in orphanages, and those children don't match up to the results you mentioned--which I now know isn't what you meant.
I suspect that, these days, most kids adopted internationally at age 3 or older have not spend most of those years in institutional care. (Though, I'm not arguing for adoption here. Just trying to clarify.)
posted by bluedaisy at 9:50 AM on January 3, 2011
I suspect that, these days, most kids adopted internationally at age 3 or older have not spend most of those years in institutional care. (Though, I'm not arguing for adoption here. Just trying to clarify.)
posted by bluedaisy at 9:50 AM on January 3, 2011
If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent.
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
Yeah, this isn't always true at all. I adopted two kids well past infancy and paid no more or less than folks who were adopted younger kids at the same time. (I was married, mostly not fat, under 40, without obvious horrible terrible flaws.)
posted by bluedaisy at 9:57 AM on January 3, 2011
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
Yeah, this isn't always true at all. I adopted two kids well past infancy and paid no more or less than folks who were adopted younger kids at the same time. (I was married, mostly not fat, under 40, without obvious horrible terrible flaws.)
posted by bluedaisy at 9:57 AM on January 3, 2011
I think that people with infertility issues and people with no infertility issues are under equal moral obligation to adopt rather than having biological children.
The idea that it's a moral right for people to have biological children, unless they have infertility issues in which case it's not at all their moral right and they are terrible people for doing so and obviously should adopt, strikes me as terribly bizarre. People should be presumed to be the best judges of their own wants and needs and strengths and weaknesses in parenting, yes?
Being an adoptive parent has a special set of challenges (just as being an adoptive child does) and I really honor everyone who undertakes that journey mindfully and with respect for everyone involved. If someone thinks they might not be up to those challenges, I respect their decision.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:50 AM on January 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
The idea that it's a moral right for people to have biological children, unless they have infertility issues in which case it's not at all their moral right and they are terrible people for doing so and obviously should adopt, strikes me as terribly bizarre. People should be presumed to be the best judges of their own wants and needs and strengths and weaknesses in parenting, yes?
Being an adoptive parent has a special set of challenges (just as being an adoptive child does) and I really honor everyone who undertakes that journey mindfully and with respect for everyone involved. If someone thinks they might not be up to those challenges, I respect their decision.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:50 AM on January 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
Also, my beloved littlest goddaughter is adopted, so I am no foe of adoption. I just don't understand the resistance to people with infertility issues pursuing biological parenting.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:52 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:52 AM on January 3, 2011
My favorite teacher gave me The Dead Girl when I was in high school and said that Thernstrom's writing reminded him of me. I was at first flattered and then, after I actually read the book, completely offended. Thernstrom's solipcism was stunning and grotesque to me. I gave her a second chance and read Halfway Heaven (which may have been better titled The Dead Girl, Pt. II: How Yet Another Famous Harvard Murder Is Somehow All About Me, Me, Me or Did I Mention I Went to Harvard Yet?) when that came out, and was again disgusted. What is called "objectification" of the surrogates above is classic Thernstrom to me: People are characters in her story, which is always The Most Important Story of all of the stories; even murders are tangential to her romances, academic career, and Harvard.
posted by pineappleheart at 10:54 AM on January 3, 2011
posted by pineappleheart at 10:54 AM on January 3, 2011
If you are single, fat, gay, over 40, have a history of mental illness, or have any other obvious "flaw" you are going to probably spend as much for adoption as for fertility treatment with similar possibilities of spending lots of money and getting nowhere. You are not going to be many birth mother's or adoption agencies first choice as a parent.
Unless you are willing to adopt a child who is past infancy.
Yeah, this isn't always true at all. I adopted two kids well past infancy and paid no more or less than folks who were adopted younger kids at the same time. (I was married, mostly not fat, under 40, without obvious horrible terrible flaws.)
I was talking about adopting infants in that paragraph, which should have been clear from the rest of the post. Nonetheless, even for older children most agencies privilege couples over singles, straights over gays, under 40 to over, no history of mental illness and/or addiction to a history of it.
And with the exception of homophobia and fatphobia there, those choices are probably in the best interests of the child. If I were giving up a child, I'd have those preferences—except for about gay people and fat people. However, in the U.S., they don't care about fat otherwise they'd have no one to adopt anyone ;-)
In fact, you can make a case that you should have *higher* standards for people who want to adopt older children rather than infants because they are likely to have more challenges and need more support. Of course, this becomes impossible because of supply/demand issues.
Bluedaisy: re: adoption from orphanages. Sadly, there are still lots of kids around the world who spend their first three years in orphanages— and lots of idiots who argue that orphanages are OK for babies. Social service agencies are unfortunately sometimes a negative part of this equation sustaining infant orphanages because donors prefer to give money to organizations— not to poor people who will then get to keep their kids. How to get the money to those kids rather than spending it on orphanages is a difficult challenge— and getting countries to realize orphanages are bad for babies is a long process, as the Romanian story sadly shows.
posted by Maias at 2:14 PM on January 3, 2011
Nonetheless, even for older children most agencies privilege couples over singles, straights over gays, under 40 to over, no history of mental illness and/or addiction to a history of it.
This varies by state and organization; it was certainly not the case for the parents I know who adopted older children.
posted by desuetude at 4:00 PM on January 3, 2011
This varies by state and organization; it was certainly not the case for the parents I know who adopted older children.
posted by desuetude at 4:00 PM on January 3, 2011
Desuetude, my point was the agencies will discriminate in those ways if they can, remember this story about the agency that placed an infant with a gay family only to be desperate to take the child away and give to a straight one? You can be darn sure they wouldn't have made that placement in the first place if there'd been a straight couple available— they went all the way to state supreme court to try to get the kid away from a loving lesbian family. Fortunately, they lost.
Most agencies can't discriminate in those ways with older children because there's a severe shortage of people willing to take older kids for exactly the reasons I've discussed above. The sad thing is, there would be many, many more people willing to take these kids if there were actually decent community-based mental health services and family support for foster care.
A good friend of mine tried to adopt an older child who was absolutely a lovely boy from a very, very messed up family. Sadly, when he hit adolescence, he started hitting her, running away, locking her in her room and stealing. He was twice her size so there was no way she could keep him without serious help once this all started.
The child welfare people were more concerned that she *didn't let him have a TV in his room* (they saw this as deprivation rather than middle class parenting!!!) than they were to try to provide mental health care and support services locally so she could keep him. The supposed 24/7 wrap around services turned out to one guy barely available during weekdays and the alleged professional who was supposed to be helping recommended instead that she place him in the horrifying Judge Rotenberg Center which uses skin shocks for discipline and is under investigation for torture.
If she hadn't known me, she would have thought it was a wonderful placement based on what he said— when she brought up my article and other investigations, he said that they'd stopped the tough tactics, even though Rotenberg itself has never even claimed to have stopped, they believe they're doing the right thing.
We actually know a lot about how to help very troubled children and to support them staying in families and avoid multiple placements. We know a lot about how to prevent them getting so troubled in the first place. But we are unwilling to spend the money on "undeserving" poor people so we pay for it times 100 in these kids' suffering, mental illness, homelessness, un or under-employment, crime, prison costs, continuing generations of poverty, etc.
posted by Maias at 4:41 PM on January 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Most agencies can't discriminate in those ways with older children because there's a severe shortage of people willing to take older kids for exactly the reasons I've discussed above. The sad thing is, there would be many, many more people willing to take these kids if there were actually decent community-based mental health services and family support for foster care.
A good friend of mine tried to adopt an older child who was absolutely a lovely boy from a very, very messed up family. Sadly, when he hit adolescence, he started hitting her, running away, locking her in her room and stealing. He was twice her size so there was no way she could keep him without serious help once this all started.
The child welfare people were more concerned that she *didn't let him have a TV in his room* (they saw this as deprivation rather than middle class parenting!!!) than they were to try to provide mental health care and support services locally so she could keep him. The supposed 24/7 wrap around services turned out to one guy barely available during weekdays and the alleged professional who was supposed to be helping recommended instead that she place him in the horrifying Judge Rotenberg Center which uses skin shocks for discipline and is under investigation for torture.
If she hadn't known me, she would have thought it was a wonderful placement based on what he said— when she brought up my article and other investigations, he said that they'd stopped the tough tactics, even though Rotenberg itself has never even claimed to have stopped, they believe they're doing the right thing.
We actually know a lot about how to help very troubled children and to support them staying in families and avoid multiple placements. We know a lot about how to prevent them getting so troubled in the first place. But we are unwilling to spend the money on "undeserving" poor people so we pay for it times 100 in these kids' suffering, mental illness, homelessness, un or under-employment, crime, prison costs, continuing generations of poverty, etc.
posted by Maias at 4:41 PM on January 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
I don't think everyone read the article. It says right near the beginning that Melanie and her husband are ineligible to adopt children.
posted by agregoli at 5:12 PM on January 3, 2011
posted by agregoli at 5:12 PM on January 3, 2011
I don't think everyone read the article. It says right near the beginning that Melanie and her husband are ineligible to adopt children.
It doesn't matter to the sorts of people who thoughtlessly and/or flippantly "suggest" adoption in any situation related to infertility and reproductive choices.
posted by muddgirl at 5:26 PM on January 3, 2011
It doesn't matter to the sorts of people who thoughtlessly and/or flippantly "suggest" adoption in any situation related to infertility and reproductive choices.
posted by muddgirl at 5:26 PM on January 3, 2011
She DOES get to define terms for the rest of us -- at least when it comes to her own family and the people who took part in creating the family.
You say that like it's some kind of universally accepted rule, but it strikes me as an absurd thing to say. Maybe you can convince me that when words refer to our families, they mean exactly what we say they mean, but in the meantime, I'll dare to disagree with her that she's "the only mother," especially in the context where she expresses it: the baby has just been born, and all she's done so far is commission it.
posted by palliser at 7:26 PM on January 3, 2011
You say that like it's some kind of universally accepted rule, but it strikes me as an absurd thing to say. Maybe you can convince me that when words refer to our families, they mean exactly what we say they mean, but in the meantime, I'll dare to disagree with her that she's "the only mother," especially in the context where she expresses it: the baby has just been born, and all she's done so far is commission it.
posted by palliser at 7:26 PM on January 3, 2011
(That is, the context in which she says she expressed it in the article; I realize that now the babies are over a year old, and she's presumably done a whole lot of mothering.)
posted by palliser at 7:28 PM on January 3, 2011
posted by palliser at 7:28 PM on January 3, 2011
Desuetude, my point was the agencies will discriminate in those ways if they can, remember this story about the agency that placed an infant with a gay family only to be desperate to take the child away and give to a straight one? You can be darn sure they wouldn't have made that placement in the first place if there'd been a straight couple available— they went all the way to state supreme court to try to get the kid away from a loving lesbian family.
Yes, but it's a big country and some agencies focus on making a good fit for less superficial reasons, hence the long and involved process referenced above.
I actually don't have any problem with fertility treatments as a concept. And I understand the biological urge to bear one's own children and participate in a child's infancy (hellooo, biological clock!) I just think it unfortunate that the definition of "being a parent" is so culturally fixated on witnessing the child's first several years. They're babies for a brief moment; the parenting ideally evolves throughout the rest of the parent's life.
posted by desuetude at 11:22 PM on January 3, 2011
Yes, but it's a big country and some agencies focus on making a good fit for less superficial reasons, hence the long and involved process referenced above.
I actually don't have any problem with fertility treatments as a concept. And I understand the biological urge to bear one's own children and participate in a child's infancy (hellooo, biological clock!) I just think it unfortunate that the definition of "being a parent" is so culturally fixated on witnessing the child's first several years. They're babies for a brief moment; the parenting ideally evolves throughout the rest of the parent's life.
posted by desuetude at 11:22 PM on January 3, 2011
« Older Rise of the Neuronovel | He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I read Halfway Heaven earlier this year and fell headlong in love with Thernstrom's work. I'm really forward to checking this article out.
(And re: the authenticity of the post: It's well-organized and thorough, like some of the better press releases. And Claudia's been a thoughtful, valued, good-faith contributor here for approximately 9.5 zillion years. There is NO WAY ON EARTH this is astroturf.)
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 1:05 PM on January 2, 2011