tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post8543702206127041674..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Dear President Obama: Please Consider the rights of the adoptedLorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-71999023081429533022013-02-17T09:24:05.679-05:002013-02-17T09:24:05.679-05:00Sorry I haven't answered some questions posed ...Sorry I haven't answered some questions posed to me. I had a death in the family right in the middle of this discussion, and two other major problems that diverted my attention. <br /><br />Lorraine, the link to the President’s Council on Bioethics does not work for the actual governmental website as that was removed.<br /><br />But the link I provided on my website actually works. I copied and pasted the entire webpage from the President's Council and re-printed it: http://forbiddenfamily.net/articles/2004-presidents-council-on-bioethics/<br /><br />This link works. Here you will read what I wrote and verbally presented to the President’s Council on Bioethics in June 2004 in defense of donor-conceived children (who will later be adults who have problems similar to adoptees).<br /><br />I'm searching through a book to find the quote about the nuclear-transfer from one human egg to another.<br />halforphan56http://www.forbiddenfamily.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-65942619563290773782013-01-27T23:50:54.311-05:002013-01-27T23:50:54.311-05:00Thank you for sending Prez O this letter. I reali...Thank you for sending Prez O this letter. I realize that many attempts to change the ridiculous OBC laws have not gone anywhere. But I'm cautiously optimistic that we will see progress, this law doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Ohio might be having a change of heart. Check out this article:<br /><br />http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/27/push-on-to-open-up-old-records.htmlWant OBC's for everyonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-21635779820160617422013-01-27T20:24:23.682-05:002013-01-27T20:24:23.682-05:00Thank you halforphan, I noticed that the link went...Thank you halforphan, I noticed that the link went nowhere.<br />Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-83710548681569578422013-01-27T10:22:56.644-05:002013-01-27T10:22:56.644-05:00I'll have to look up the quotes later from the...I'll have to look up the quotes later from the book: Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biothechnologies.<br /><br />The President's Council on Bioethics has removed the online link to my presentation, probably due to change in Presidents in 2009), so here is the link to my presentation on my blog:<br />http://forbiddenfamily.net/articles/2004-presidents-council-on-bioethics/halforphan56http://www.forbiddenfamily.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-56820980832309982472013-01-26T21:00:31.477-05:002013-01-26T21:00:31.477-05:00Halforphan56 said "I am halforphan56 and not ...Halforphan56 said "I am halforphan56 and not annonymous. I'm tired of being accused of things I did not do. So, it appears I have either misread something or else I am blind. In any case, I thought ObamaGirl was talking to me. Again, I am not annonymous."<br /><br />Thank you for clearing that up, halforphan56.Manonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-59502597579929387072013-01-26T16:39:18.947-05:002013-01-26T16:39:18.947-05:00From manon:
"So, halforphan56, are you and A... From manon:<br /><br />"So, halforphan56, are you and Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM one and the same person? <br />I would like to know because, if so, you also insulted me by calling me a liar for saying that Orwell was an adopter. And what is more, as halforphan56, you followed up my comment with a link leading to the same information! <br />It is all very confusing and it would be appreciated if you would clear up the confusion. <br />Enquiring minds want to know."<br /><br />Oh for Pete's sake!<br /><br />I did not call you a liar!<br /><br />So I added another libnk about George Orwell! So what?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />halforphan56https://www.blogger.com/profile/15993703627790425846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-22007171420030338592013-01-26T16:34:30.687-05:002013-01-26T16:34:30.687-05:00I am halforphan56 and not annonymous. I'm tire...I am halforphan56 and not annonymous. I'm tired of being accused of things I did not do. So, it appears I have either misread something or else I am blind. In any case, I thought ObamaGirl was talking to me. Again, I am not annonymous.<br /><br />I stand by my answer: waht happens in split parentage and how that affects the child produced by artificial means. If you want to fight. I'm not fighting.<br /><br />I will back shortly with links as Lorraine asked. <br /><br />Perhaps a bit later as there are real life tasks to do now.halforphan56https://www.blogger.com/profile/15993703627790425846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-46396260437446678292013-01-26T15:06:46.459-05:002013-01-26T15:06:46.459-05:00Robin:
"more likely" is what I said.
...Robin: <br /><br />"more likely" is what I said. <br /><br />You said "probably a <i>greater likelihood</i> that blood relatives..." which is the same thing, no?Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-47557313110409018272013-01-26T14:57:57.220-05:002013-01-26T14:57:57.220-05:00"Blood relatives are much more likely to acce..."Blood relatives are much more likely to accept and take in nieces and nephews, or grandchildren, is something happens to the adoptive parent or parents."<br /><br />I don't think you can make an across-the-board generalization like that. I don't think the issue is as clear cut as blood relatives will always look out for one another and adopted relatives will always be left out in the cold. I think it depends on the family. There is probably a greater likelihood that blood relatives will take in an orphaned family member than adoptive relatives would, but I think it is an exaggeration to say that there always a direct correlation.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-86368776812352660062013-01-26T10:54:35.344-05:002013-01-26T10:54:35.344-05:00Thanks Robin for stating this. While the lack of a...Thanks Robin for stating this. While the lack of acceptance by extended family members may be noticeable and hurtful when the adoptive family is intact, what really concerns me is what happens to the children when an adoptive parent or parents die or become incapacitated and someone else needs to step up and take over and provide a home. When I first heard about Cheryl Crow's brain tumors, which appear to be nonmalignant, the first thought I had was: if she dies or can't take care of the two kids she adopted, who will? They are quite young. She is a single parent, as are many celebrities who adopt, and so there is not a partner who also signed up for this. Would Danny O'Donnell, for instance, and his partner step in if something happened to Rosie? I'm thinking boarding schools and extended summer camps. <br /><br />Blood relatives are much more likely to accept and take in nieces and nephews, or grandchildren, is something happens to the adoptive parent or parents. But when the obvious caretakers (related by paper) don't want to, what happens? The cities with foster-care programs which first try to track down family members to provide homes have the highest success rates. We written about such a program at FMF before.Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-61287534192665166252013-01-26T10:50:41.830-05:002013-01-26T10:50:41.830-05:00Robin said "So, it really does depend on the ...Robin said "So, it really does depend on the individual family, and like everything else in adoption, is basically a crapshot."<br /><br />I agree. And on the individuals in the individual family as well, as evidenced by Richard Blair's experience. Aunt Avril stepped up to the plate, but Sonia Orwell (as she called herself after her husband's death - although legally she was Sonia Blair) evidently didn't feel that kind of love or obligation.Manonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-62593808497722693012013-01-26T10:44:19.499-05:002013-01-26T10:44:19.499-05:00@ halforphan56
Halforphan56, in your comment of ...@ halforphan56 <br /><br />Halforphan56, in your comment of January 25, 2013 at 5.28 PM you said to Obamagirl:<br />"As for this: “you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”<br />I take it that you direct this comment to me."<br /><br />What Obamagirl *actually* wrote was:<br /> "Anonymous January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”<br />So unless you are both 'halforphan56' *and* 'anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM' I don't see how you could possibly have thought her comment was directed at you. The fact that she addressed her comment to 'Anonymous January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM' would be impossible to miss - especially as you copied the bulk of it into your own comment (see above, top) - and makes it clear that her comment was directed towards the anon who wrote the below: <br /><br />Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM wrote:<br />"@Obamagirl, Many gay adoptive parents, including celebrity ones have chosen closed adoption which upsets me. I am completely anti-closed adoption. This is what I mean by the gays holding us back and making it harder to fight the abusive adoption laws. Because there are even more people adopting now because of gay adoptive parents and more people to fight us. I find your behavior towards me very immature, unintelligent and rude. Telling me to go F myself, I said nothing of the sort to you. You should know you aren't going to get any brownie points from any one acting and talking like this. You'll only make people dislike you a whole lot. To whom ever said to me that Orwell was an adoptive parent and burned the papers with the names of the children real parents, that is an outright lie, so please spare me and everyone else more of them. dpen and Robin,thank you."<br /><br />So, halforphan56, are you and Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM one and the same person? <br />I would like to know because, if so, you also insulted me by calling me a liar for saying that Orwell was an adopter. And what is more, as halforphan56, you followed up my comment with a link leading to the same information! <br />It is all very confusing and it would be appreciated if you would clear up the confusion. <br />Enquiring minds want to know.Manonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-81773659063659521472013-01-26T10:27:55.163-05:002013-01-26T10:27:55.163-05:00Lorraine wrote: " When the adopting individua...Lorraine wrote: " When the adopting individual, or individuals die, how often does the extended family feel obligated and loving towards someone who only connection to them may be a piece of paper signed by someone other than himself?"<br /><br />What you are asking is...are adopted people treated the same as bio-family members? The answer is ... Not always. And this is something important for expectant mothers to keep in mind when considering adoption. Even though the prospective adoptive parents may be totally gung ho about becoming parents, that does not mean that all extended family members are on board to step into their respective roles as grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. I know many stories, as well as having experienced my own, of adopted family members not being fully accepted by everyone because of their lack of blood connection. So, it really does depend on the individual family, and like everything else in adoption, is basically a crapshot.Robinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-24940903200413048772013-01-26T08:58:09.437-05:002013-01-26T08:58:09.437-05:00halforphan:
Yes. halforphan:<br /><br />Yes. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-12365024406980062692013-01-26T01:05:56.363-05:002013-01-26T01:05:56.363-05:00Thanks, dpen.
To ObamaGirl:
Did you take 3rd gra...Thanks, dpen.<br /><br />To ObamaGirl:<br /><br />Did you take 3rd grade biology? Sperm meets egg, fertilizes egg, grows into fetus, fetus grows into baby, baby is born, grows into child, child grows into adult then dies.<br /><br />All of that is legally changed when birthed child becomes an adopted child. Biology is erased in favor of adoption. <br /><br />In reality, the adoptee has two sets of real parents: the two who created the living being, and the two who raised the birthed child of two other parents.<br /><br />Wait! Biology gets even further divided! There is a technique in which the nucleus of one egg is sucked out and replaced with the nucleus of a healthier woman’s egg. The egg then has the genes of two women: the cytoplasm of one (which includes the mitochondria of one mother) and the nucleus of the other. <br /><br />Toss in the sperm donor and surrogate mother and contractual adoptive parents and taht spells too many parents for a child/person to handle. That is a burden toplace on a human being.<br /><br />The United States decided to outlaw this type of procedure about 10 years ago. The President’s Council on Bioethics determined that this was unethical to create a human with two genetic mothers.<br /><br />If you want the exact quote, I can provide it. I don’t want to hunt for it now, but will if you want me to, ObamaGirl.<br /><br />BTW: That was President Bush, dubya, who called for the President’s Council on Bioethics to research many facets of bioethics, not just creating babies. I should know. I drove 800 miles to present a paper in person to the panel in Washington DC in 2004. I can prove that statement. Want the link to my paper defending adoptees rights?<br />halforphan56https://www.blogger.com/profile/15993703627790425846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-84437922352888280672013-01-25T21:26:14.179-05:002013-01-25T21:26:14.179-05:00Obamagirl, This is what cracks me up about people...Obamagirl, This is what cracks me up about people..you say you fundamentally disagree with with whats important to children...so basically you are saying you know better then those that have actually lived the experience..you are NO expert my dear..you are just spouting the latest babble that is politically correct. wait, if we are black,gay, oriental, conservative,liberal, we often say the same thing as adoptees...who the hell are you to say we are wrong...WE KNOW what is best for adoptees..that is the truth, the truth on our birth certificates, the truths about our beginnings the priority is to be with us...not the potential adoptive parents that may be adopting only to prove a point for themselves...not to truly give a child what they need. These donor conceived babies, these surrogacy babies, these adoptees are HUMANS..they are not just bouncy little babies to be plastered on the airwaves for everyone to say ..awwww...look at the cute bouncy baby and LOOK it has 2 daddies, or 2 momies, or is not the REAL child of mr and mrs and they love them as their own...wow! Hope that little baby know how "lucky" they are to be living, breathing, eating and have shelter...look what their parents had to go through to "get" them! <br /><br />YES, we adoptees know what children need and those that are not adoptees don't. How about listening and taking it in instead of fighting with the true experts. Because politics...because you have to prove that gays can parent, or others that have a need to prove that bio does not matter.<br /><br />you asked me what a birth certificate means...it means a TRUE and accurate document of who is responsible for "birthing" and making this human being...if in fact we have to document donors, surrogates etc so be it...it is NOT about who raises them...It is NOT a document to make the adults feel all warm and fuzzy about being the "real" mommy, daddy to their little prize. It is NOT a political statement to futher anyone rights but the ones that has been born.dpennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-41117264721392993252013-01-25T20:16:55.858-05:002013-01-25T20:16:55.858-05:00Halforphan, I wasn't even talking to you Halft...Halforphan, I wasn't even talking to you Halfthetime. I was talking to Anon. I don't live in the United States. We fundamentally disagree on what is important to children. Nothing more to be said. Good luck with your campaign. ObamaGirlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-35158443833360766582013-01-25T17:28:55.353-05:002013-01-25T17:28:55.353-05:00Part 2 to ObamaGirl:
“Please explain why it is inh...Part 2 to ObamaGirl:<br />“Please explain why it is inhumane when all parties agreed with it, embraced their roles, delighted in this child's birth, and accepted the two men as parents from Day 1. Why is this family configuration going to be so harmful to this child and so offensive to you?”<br /><br />All parties DID NOT agree to it: the child/person created this way, who was possibly adopted, too, did not agree to this and will suffer the consequences of all of the parents’ decisions. Identity confusion is very hard to accept and figure out. So, two men are raising the child, and the child will ask, “Who is my mother?” And the answer is: she has two mothers. And if the surrogate was paid for her rent-a-womb services, that adds another dimension to this identity confusion.<br /> <br />You say that this all will be explained to her when she is older. I can tell you from experience that telling a child various explanations, even in age appropriate ways, the explanations change and the child hears that new information is given each time, and that adds to the identity confusion: which version is correct? So, they lied to me before because I was too young to understand. <br /><br />When the complete truth is told, the perhaps now-young adult may be hurt, furious, in grief because her genetic mother is dead (that cannot be helped, I realize) and disgusted that she grew inside the uterus of a woman she may or may not know in any capacity. <br /><br />Since you take offense to my answer, and will probably dislike this answer, too, may I suggest that you buy this book: “Lethal Secrets: The Shocking Consequences and Unsolved Problems of Artificial Insemination: parents, children, donors, and experts speak out” by Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor, 1989. <br /><br />As for this:<br />“you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”<br /><br />I take it that you direct this comment to me. I did not insult an entire group of people; you believe I did. I certainly do take responsibility for my words. Just because I haven’t answered immediately (I have a life offline, you know), does not mean I am not taking responsibility in not responding to you sooner. Yes, anyone who creates a human being by artificial means is “morally culpable” for the reasons I have already stated. Read the book named above and you will read personal accounts of how donor-conceived people feel. Even in the most open and loving household, as I’ve already stated, a child/person created in this way, and then adopted, in this case raised (adopted?) by two men, will be confused. <br /><br />Uh, I voted for Obama, twice. I am a Unitarian Universalist for 30 years. In my church, we have a very large congregation of gays and lesbians, transgendered, bi, and heterosexuals. There are varying degrees of openness about gamete donation, surrogacy and adoption. We all respect each other. <br /><br />For me to point out areas that need further discussion and legislation does not mean I am anti-gay or homophobic. I was one of three heterosexuals present at a demonstration in favor of gay marriage. Myself and my children were invited to and attended a lesbian wedding. Several of my friends are gays and lesbians. And the oldest child of my childhood friend is lesbian. <br />halforphan56https://www.blogger.com/profile/15993703627790425846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-192877814070769922013-01-25T17:25:31.651-05:002013-01-25T17:25:31.651-05:00To ObamaGirl,
My answers in 2 parts due to space ...To ObamaGirl,<br /><br />My answers in 2 parts due to space limitations:<br /><br />Sorry my comment upset you so much. I’m not here to pick a fight. Yes, I did write the words you quoted. What you did not explain is: did the man whose now-deceased fraternal twin sister donated eggs, did he adopt this child? Is his name and the other man’s name on an amended birth certificate? If so, they both are part of the problem. <br /><br />I don’t care how much love and personal-truth-telling any gay or lesbian couple, or any heterosexual couple, gives a child created by artificial means, the facts are that individual state laws vary on who is listed on the child’s birth certificate. <br /><br />Some COUNTRIES officially require that ALL parents are named on ONE birth certificate, Britain (feeling that to do so would hurt gays and lesbians) decided several years ago to completely deny the existence of any other parent on the official birth certificate, so only two women or two men are named as parents on a child’s birth certificate.<br /><br />In the family you described: The names of the two men who are raising this child belong on an ADOPTION certificate, not a birth certificate.<br /><br />In America, different states may have different laws. So, if the surrogate is named as the birthing mother, and the sperm donor is named as the father on the actual birth certificate, and then the gay couple adopts the child, the names of two men are then listed on the new, amended and false birth certificate, and the actual birth certificate is sealed. The new birth certificate becomes the child’s (person’s) only form of ID, which is a lie. It is a legal lie. If all of the above is true, and the egg donor is not named anywhere, that is another lie. <br /><br />You asked for a solution and I gave one. As I said, this is not my own opinion; I have researched this topic for 30 years and have consulted with top people from around the world. I co-presented about this topic at an American Adoption Congress conference in the mid 1990s and in our audience sat the late Annette Baran. She politely said that she thought sperm donation was a wonderful way to create a baby. Well, you know, Annette was a role model for me since 1976, and she later became my friend. But at that moment, I disagreed with my role model and teacher. She, of course, was a great writer, a social worker, but she was not adopted and, therefore, could not know how it all feels. <br /><br />I (and most adoptees and natural mothers) do not approve of sperm donation, egg donation, surrogate mothers, and contractual parents who pick and choose gamete donors off of websites and pick a surrogate from India. As I said previously, the psychological and medical burdens placed upon a child/person created by these means, are inhumane. You may not understand, but I do. I’m adopted. I’ve talked with many people who were created in this way and they are not happy about it. None of what I say is homophobic. None. <br />halforphan56https://www.blogger.com/profile/15993703627790425846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-20388212028869404072013-01-25T17:15:34.847-05:002013-01-25T17:15:34.847-05:00Actually the only time the word "keen" a...Actually the only time the word "keen" appears in the Sunday Times article is with reference to Eileen, Orwell's first wife, and is about the adoption. <br /><br />The person who seemed to be not at all keen on raising Richard after Orwell's death was his second wife Sonia Brownwell, considered by some to be a conniving literary groupie. She was sixteen years younger than Orwell and they married three months before he died. <br />The article from The Sunday Times states "a stepmother’s role was not one she coveted, so Richard continued to live with Avril and Bill, and scarcely saw Sonia during the 1950s."Manonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-71840513037519098652013-01-25T12:31:13.040-05:002013-01-25T12:31:13.040-05:00It is rather ironic, isn't it? Nevertheless, R...It is rather ironic, isn't it? Nevertheless, Richard remembers Orwell lovingly, saying he had "a heart of deep paternal affection".<br /><br />It seems that Orwell's wife Eileen wasn't too keen on the idea of adoption, but agreed to it because she knew that Orwell was desperate for a son. <br />Orwell's sister Avril sounds like a typical of-the-period-no-nonsense kind of person, but according to Richard she was protective and loving in her own way. Here's some stuff about Richard's upbringing with Aunt Av:<br />http://www.orwellsociety.com/2011/10/27/richard-blair-on-life-with-my-aunt-avril/<br /><br />And here's the vid from the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival 2009 of Richard Blair in conversation with D. J Taylor:<br />http://georgeorwellnovels.com/videos/george-orwell-son-richard-blair-in-conversation-with-d-j-taylor/Manonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-63767797542753879262013-01-25T10:52:19.031-05:002013-01-25T10:52:19.031-05:00from one of the links about Orwell's adopted s...from one of the links about Orwell's adopted son:<br /><br />One final, intriguing question hanging over Richard’s [Orwell's adopted son] childhood is the identity of his true parents. On his copy of the adoption certificate their names have been burnt away with a cigarette, leaving a brown-edged hole, as if Orwell wanted to destroy any evidence that his boy was not his. Despite this dissuasion, Richard decided, fairly recently, to track down his birth mother, only to find that she had died, and that his surviving halfsister had no idea her mother had ever given a child up for adoption. “She took her secret to the grave,” she told Richard, and she made it clear that she wanted her mother’s secret kept. So he has vowed to keep it silent.<br /><br />This is from the Sunday Times (of London, I believe) 3 years ago it says at the bottom. Orwell's adoptive mother died when he was three; she kept her illness secret until he was adopted, apparently; and Orwell himself died when Richard was six. Orwell's sister did not seem keen to have this child to raise, a question I have often considered. When the adopting individual, or individuals die, how often does the extended family feel obligated and loving towards someone who only connection to them may be a piece of paper signed by someone other than himself?Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-46272506684766973422013-01-25T10:40:53.620-05:002013-01-25T10:40:53.620-05:00Yo! The Orwell story is so...Orwellian. I read the...Yo! The Orwell story is so...Orwellian. I read the links above. Thank you. <br /><br />How cruel of Orwell to burn the names of the original parents of his son. How futuristic, and how extraordinarily cruel. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-78749118502257015352013-01-25T08:41:03.294-05:002013-01-25T08:41:03.294-05:00dpen, yes, the identity of the egg donor ought to ...dpen, yes, the identity of the egg donor ought to be on the certificate, but I don't think it's wrong to list the two men as her parents. In this particular case, there is such openness that it is hard to think of this child being harmed by secrecy. But you are right that the child is entitled to a document expressing her genetic origins accurately. On that we agree. However, I do not think that making this family was wrong-headed. <br /><br />ObamaGirlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-34683202765540991382013-01-24T21:20:37.310-05:002013-01-24T21:20:37.310-05:00obamagirll,,I still maintain a true BC is one that...obamagirll,,I still maintain a true BC is one that conceived the person listed...not the adoptive parents whether gay or not...yes there are AMENDED BC that can state the family dog if they want but they are not the true BC, those are sealed and needs an act of congress to open them. If all the paps, current adoptive parents and general society in general REALLY love the poor little bastards they would get that a person needs to know their beginnings no matter what they came from and to attempt to change the fact(by changing BC to suite the needy) is NOT in the child's best interest. A childs birth is really about the child not the wanna be real mommy's and daddies that make the childs birth about them. So sorry about being so cynical but being the hard core moderate that I am I SEE the hypocrisy in both conservative and liberal agenda's and BOTH are about themselves and not the true needy. As the hyper liberal champion gays rights they forget about the little asexual babe that is in the middle of there "fight" , conservative are so against gays that they would prefer a baby not be aborted and be given to abusive praying people then to a couple of the same sex that truly can raise a child....anyway the little human loses in both cases. Please listen to the adoptees they are the ONLY experts ....I am pro child...not anti or pro anything else.<br /><br />If someone is gay and CHOOSES not to create their OWN child they are NOT entitled to someones else's all in the name of gay rights...if a hetro couple is infertile for whatever reason they are NOT entitled to to someones else's child. AND in both cases if it becomes apparent that this child NEEDS to be placed because of neglect or abuse its up to the potential raisers to educated themselves on what they are doing...its NOT up to the child to make them feel all happy and parental and build families. Its up to the adults to help the child heal from the trauma of being separated from their first mothers...no matter who or what they are. <br /><br />AND if all you REALLY love your cute little bouncing babes you will understand that open RECORDS(not necessarily open adoption) are what ALL people need. If you are not adopted you don't get it.dpennoreply@blogger.com