tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post3474693339912624485..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: When a child of surrogacy asks: Who is my mommy? Lorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-25495739499029379282020-02-10T13:52:32.730-05:002020-02-10T13:52:32.730-05:00
COMMENTS AT BLOGS OLDER THAN 30 DAYS ARE UNLIKELY...<br />COMMENTS AT BLOGS OLDER THAN 30 DAYS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE PUBLISHEDLorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-46198112947918915802014-03-07T21:24:47.367-05:002014-03-07T21:24:47.367-05:00JMO: I really am trying very hard not to be rude ...JMO: I really am trying very hard not to be rude but you are consistently taking my posts out of context or misunderstanding them or something and putting words in my mouth and I ask you to stop.<br /><br />By definition, a biological parent is a person who has contributed DNA to an offspring. Therefore IMO, yes indeed, the donor is a mommy whether 1%, 50% or somewhere in between. My argument if you would please go back and read carefully says:<br /><br />will the child that results from this be aware of their 3 distinct DNA lineages and backgrounds.<br /><br />Then I went on to say that having my family and identity stolen from me and my mother's callous attitude towards it has ruined my life. Why should any other child have to suffer in the same way.<br /><br />I am finished commenting on this topic and trying to explain and re-explain what I think is fairly fundamental.<br /><br />If you have something more to say, perhaps state it as your own opinion and not in answer to my posts.<br /><br />And kudos to the new post about identities and birth certificates being papers of ownership. Well done Jane and Lorraine!! I for one, appreciate your championing the importance of things like this for people like me.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-70809877232012090442014-03-07T09:56:19.934-05:002014-03-07T09:56:19.934-05:00@ Anon, March 6, 8:25 PM
I'm not arguing with ...@ Anon, March 6, 8:25 PM<br />I'm not arguing with you. I am trying to explain - and evidently not doing a very good job of it - why the three lineages and background argument that *you* made in your earlier comment (two mothers and a father) is wrong. !% of DNA does not a mommy make. <br />That is not to say that a person shouldn't have access to the identity of the donor whose DNA enabled them to be born healthy. Like yourself, I believe they should.<br /><br />If you or anyone else is interested, this blog explains it much better than I ever could:<br />http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2014/03/02/heather-has-three-parents/<br /><br />JMOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-43780447566848418082014-03-06T20:25:35.774-05:002014-03-06T20:25:35.774-05:00JMO - why do you insist on arguing with me about d...JMO - why do you insist on arguing with me about designer babies? I never said anything remotely about that. As far as babies being born without this illness, how would they anyway as this is an IVF treatment?<br /><br />I said I am concerned with these children's IDENTITES... which is something we agree on.<br /><br />Stop putting words in my mouth and fighting me about something I'm not even talking about please and thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-14564462095698351502014-03-06T11:03:39.046-05:002014-03-06T11:03:39.046-05:00@ Anon, March 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM
By "cosmetic...@ Anon, March 5, 2014 at 9:20 PM<br />By "cosmetically enhanced" I mean altering DNA to create designer "super-babies" (Baby Einteins, Baby Clone of Most-Hyped-up-Beautiful-Celebrity-of-the-Moment). The procedure under discussion in the U.K is not for that. It is to prevent life-crippling hereditary diseases from being passed on to a child via the mother.<br />As far as I can make out (I am not a scientist either) the percentage of donor mitochondrial DNA would be extremely minimal, A child born as a result of this procedure would indeed have the genetic material of three people, but almost all of it would still be from the mother and father and no more than 1% from the donor - and the child would not have to suffer from a devastating disease.<br /><br />I agree there are still issues that need to be resolved, such as whether the donor should remain anonymous. My personal opinion is that that the child has the right to know the donor's identity, and I am not aware of any reason why a donor should remain anonymous anyway, since, presumably they donated for altruistic reasons. There is also the possibility of long-term "unintended consequences" to be considered. It is uncharted territory, and we don't know what will happen down the road. However it is a way of preventing people being born with incurable diseases which would destroy their lives.<br />Then of course there is the argument that an unborn child is unable to agree to a procedure that modifies its genetic make-up, but it is hard to imagine that, given a choice between being born with a devastating disease and being born healthy, anyone would chose the former.<br /><br />JMOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-35722653002098014192014-03-05T21:20:57.926-05:002014-03-05T21:20:57.926-05:00to JMO: who said anything about cosmetics? This ...to JMO: who said anything about cosmetics? This is still a case of playing god with nature and causing these children to have DNA that is "tampered with" and anonymous donor DNA. That is my point - these children's identities and right to know who they are. I believe you missed the intention of my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-51146263462970153912014-03-04T11:18:14.272-05:002014-03-04T11:18:14.272-05:00@ Anon, March 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM
What is under pub...@ Anon, March 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM<br />What is under public discussion in the U.K is not cosmetic genetic engineering to create designer babies. It is genetic therapy to replace the broken genes that cause children to be born with terrible diseases. So in that sense it is very much about putting the children first.<br />I do understand the "slippery slope" argument. It is why it is so important to differentiate between treatment and enhancement, and to enact laws and treaties to make cosmetic engineering illegal.<br /><br />JMOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-12651713062841637152014-03-02T21:28:40.682-05:002014-03-02T21:28:40.682-05:00If I may take this one step further, I have just r...If I may take this one step further, I have just recently read about potential laws being passed both in the UK and US for IVF where "faulty" eggs can have donor DNA inserted into them... aka the egg combines the nuclear DNA from one mother and the mitrochondrial DNA from a donor mother. I'm not sure the exact process I'm not a scientist. Again I have to ask, will the child that results from this be aware of their 3 distinct DNA lineages and backgrounds (2 mothers and father)? is it becoming a case of being one step away from Dr. Moreau?<br /><br />Where oh where are the children in any of these situations - closed adoptions/surrogacy/whatever. Can't anyone see beyond their own selfish needs to think of the psychological impact on the children they purport to want and love so much?<br /><br />I'm a closed adoption and my life has been a complete trainwreck as a direct result of it combined with my mother's cruelty. I have been reduced to repeated suicide attempts and I'm scarred from head to toe as she led me to believe and has treated me as if my life was meaningless and I am worthless and she told me point blank so what she doesn't care. <br /><br />PUT THE CHILDREN FIRST!! what happened to us was bad enough and mothers and children continue to suffer. To think that it continues just in different formats makes me ill. This madness needs to end.<br /><br />p.s. not to nitpick Julia because I get what you mean, but that baby will not grow up and become a person... s/he already is one and I agree with you... deserves to know who s/he TRULY is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-69897927733751775152014-03-01T13:37:22.741-05:002014-03-01T13:37:22.741-05:00The "healthy infant" label/criteria is b...The "healthy infant" label/criteria is both too rigid and too vague to be really helpful. Despite all one would wish, healthy infants *are* sometimes placed in circumstances where adoption or the opportunity to be placed in foster care with potential adopters is warranted. Infancy is normally considered to last until around twelve months Those infants who have no chance of being raised within their original family deserve to have permanency, ideally at least before they reach the age of six months. <br />So long as potential adoptive parents are empathetic, stable and honest, it makes no difference that they are gay or lesbian. They are qualified to raise a child. <br /><br />Like others have said, the crucial thing is that there are no secrets. The same is true of surrogacy, no matter how complicated. The ethical thing to do is to make the identities of those who have contributed physically, in this case the genetic mother, the gestational mother and the genetic father, legally available to the person who is brought into being as a consequence of these adult decisions. <br />The financial aspect is another matter, and I heartily agree that paid surrogacy should be against the law. Of course removing the financial incentive would hurt the industry. Too bad - although unfortunately I don't see it happening any time soon. It's a juggernaut that shows no sign of running out of steam. All the more reason to try and set guidelines.<br /><br />JMOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-91118685187618022142014-02-26T17:54:27.863-05:002014-02-26T17:54:27.863-05:00Gay couples having children with other gay couples...Gay couples having children with other gay couples and raising them together is definitely preferable to gays adopting healthy infants--a win-win all the way around.<br /><br />Children are raised with people who look and think like them and they know their heritage. Mothers and fathers are not grieving over a lost child. By creating their own child, gays(and (anyone else) are not putting pressure on the adoption market to take short cuts to deliver the goods. <br /><br />Of course adopting children from foster care is also positive both for the child, the adoptive parents, and often for the natural parents.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-51983221825949395502014-02-26T14:33:58.079-05:002014-02-26T14:33:58.079-05:00The Center for Bioethics and Culture presents &quo...The Center for Bioethics and Culture presents "Breeders:A subclass of Women?"<br /><br />http://breeders.cbc-network.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-81306949060063813752014-02-26T10:32:08.695-05:002014-02-26T10:32:08.695-05:00Anonymous:
Re gay adoption: If adoption must happ...Anonymous:<br /><br />Re gay adoption: If adoption must happen, let it be with open and full disclosure of all parents. We have seen stories that gays are more likely to adopt children with obvious and known problems, and from foster care, and of course we are behind that. However, if the number of people looking for babies to "complete" their family now adds pressure to find more "adoptable" babies--obviously we are not behind that.Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-85248073861603461642014-02-25T22:48:49.078-05:002014-02-25T22:48:49.078-05:00Jane, some day, if I'm lucky, I'll find a ...Jane, some day, if I'm lucky, I'll find a yellowed clipping in my attic from the mid-'70s, cut from the San Francisco Chronicle. It shows a beaming trio comprising a pregnant lesbian, the gay friend who donated his semen (administered by turkey baster), and in the middle, the bicycle messenger who sped the "packages" from the man's office to the woman's in the Financial District for the month or two it took to achieve a successful conception.<br /><br />Low-tech! Full genetic disclosure! Four loving parents, as well as the bike messenger, who was named one of the godparents! This blew my college-student mind... it all seemed so simple, loving, and, yes, natural.MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00479830264284065679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-72849417668242126292014-02-25T19:39:04.936-05:002014-02-25T19:39:04.936-05:00"Two loving fathers should be enough family f..."Two loving fathers should be enough family for anyone." Really? Perhaps try "loving parents." The "two" and "enough" is very dismissive of a situation far more complicated. Some of us have four parents, some even more. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-27330427539683272192014-02-25T14:50:29.904-05:002014-02-25T14:50:29.904-05:00Jane, you said " I think this is definitely t...Jane, you said " I think this is definitely the right way to go for gays and lesbians who want children."<br /><br />Does this mean you think adoption is the wrong way to go for gays and lesbians who want children? <br />Because that is what it sounds like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-29301807106023354872014-02-25T12:02:57.167-05:002014-02-25T12:02:57.167-05:00Anon,
I have to disagree with your. In adoption, ...Anon, <br />I have to disagree with your. In adoption, there is the fee to the agency, first mother medical and other expenses and attorney fees, altogether $30,000+<br /><br />In the case of gay men using artificial means, there is the cost of the egg, the surrogate's fee and medical expenses, and the attorney fees, together from $75,000 to $120,000. <br /><br />The cost for lesbians using AI would be higher than the cost of a cooperative agreement because of the fee to the sperm donor. <br /><br />If people are paying anywhere close to $30,000 for cooperative child bearing and rearing, they need to find another doctor and lawyer.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-73174814540282565562014-02-25T10:36:50.427-05:002014-02-25T10:36:50.427-05:00Jane,
There is no sex in the conception and there...Jane,<br /><br />There is no sex in the conception and there is still money spent on the artificial insemenation and court proceeding to work out custody arrangement. So it's still costly and not that much cheaper in the big picture than surrogacy and adoption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-16384050234512701702014-02-25T10:13:23.107-05:002014-02-25T10:13:23.107-05:00Anon wrote:
"The newest trend for same sex co...Anon wrote:<br />"The newest trend for same sex couples is a co-parenting concept. Where one gay couple will conceive a child with one lesbian couple. Both couples have joint custody of the child. The child knows their full genetic heritage. It almost acts similar to a divorced parenting situation with a lot less drama."<br /><br />I think this is definitely the right way to go for gays and lesbians who want children. Better for the child who will know her roots, better for those involved in the conception. No exploitation. <br /><br />And of course much cheaper which means that the money not spent for adoption or creating a child artificially can be saved for the child's college education.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-85802845028168668972014-02-25T08:59:14.763-05:002014-02-25T08:59:14.763-05:00The newest trend for same sex couples is a co-pare...The newest trend for same sex couples is a co-parenting concept. Where one gay couple will conceive a child with one lesbian couple. Both couples have joint custody of the child. The child knows their full genetic heritage. It almost acts similar to a divorced parenting situation with a lot less drama. <br /><br />I wish I could find the article I saw to share with you but was curious about your thoughts on this concept of co-parenting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-44882253076799827532014-02-24T19:05:59.219-05:002014-02-24T19:05:59.219-05:00My reaction to Darlene Pinkerton's husband Tom...My reaction to Darlene Pinkerton's husband Tom's comment was not because there'd be "no mommy", but because he's sending out the message that having *three doting guys* to give a woman flowers for what's described here is somehow a desirable thing. <br />Just how desperate for attention would such a person have to be? Tom doesn't have much regard for women.<br /><br />I suspect Rowan Farrow does have a pretty good idea who his father is and probably does care too, at least up to a point. Could be he's just "burned out" by all the publicity and gossip and just wants for people to shut up about it. I could get with that. <br />For Woody Allen I have no tears to spare.<br /><br />Maryanne is right. No money, no anonymity. Full disclosure of all parties involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-88497458376866533612014-02-24T14:27:19.659-05:002014-02-24T14:27:19.659-05:00Bee Hive, that was my point.
Not that gays have ...Bee Hive, that was my point. <br /><br />Not that gays have children--that the story and the two fathers seem not to indicate that the "egg" mother is a non-issue and the writer seems not to notice that maybe the child is not supposed to know whose genes she carries. But take one look at the picture and everybody knows. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-44463543213585882842014-02-24T11:45:07.970-05:002014-02-24T11:45:07.970-05:00Maryanne's spot on as usual. This is a family ...Maryanne's spot on as usual. This is a family constituted without a mommy. However, in this case, I don't think that is necessarily "sad" because there is no mommy here to be sad about, and these two loving fathers should be enough family for anyone. Do we really need to hear about how dire it is for "two men" to raise a child, as was recently suggested to Racilous of Adoption in the City? BS and homophobic, and the research doesn't bear that out. She chose those APs and her choice should be respected. <br /><br />What is sad and inexcusable is that the child in the article will not know her genetic heritage and the non-adopted adults don't think it's important enough to guarantee. The "two men" issue totally obscures that real issue. Keep it simple and equal, guys. BeeHivenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-40093425176023473132014-02-24T10:55:52.885-05:002014-02-24T10:55:52.885-05:00Yeah, I read that comment too--3 guys instead one ...Yeah, I read that comment too--3 guys instead one one--and had a weird reaction. Same reason I found Mama Mia irritating--the girl doesn't care who her father is? Sure. Like, really?<br /><br />Same way Ronan Farrow doesn't care who his father is. Of course he has a relationship with Frank Sinatra's family, hates Woody. Who paid child support for him for decades.Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-61758690111307574742014-02-24T10:04:05.249-05:002014-02-24T10:04:05.249-05:00From your source article in the N.Y Times.
Darlen...From your source article in the N.Y Times. <br />Darlene Pinkerton's husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, said, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”<br /><br />Oh yuck. Yuckitty yuckitty YUCK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-28144362701207189832014-02-22T11:40:18.986-05:002014-02-22T11:40:18.986-05:00Paid surrogacy should be against the law everywher...Paid surrogacy should be against the law everywhere. There is too much room for exploitation, like our current money-based adoption system. And of course nobody should be anonymous in sperm or egg donation.<br /><br />As to the scenario described, that little girl has no "Mommy". What she has is two dads, an egg donor, and a surrogate who carried her. Neither of those qualifies as "Mom" in my opinion. Sad.maryannenoreply@blogger.com