Biological malfunction
Last Sunday my wife and I attended our great nephew's first birthday.
He's a cute little boy with big dreamy eyes.
For the occasion the whole family got together. His grandfather had rented one of those inflatable jumping castle, they were kids of all ages running around smiling and laughing. My niece and her friends had organised lots of games to keep the little ones happy. A real feast had been organised to cater for both adults and children.
Well it was one hell of a 1st birthday, that's for sure !
However there was something missing or I should say someone. Someone really important. Someone that this little man ought to be looking up to.
I think you guessed it ...his dad wasn't there !
The all mighty biological father of this child wasn't part of the festivities !
So where was he ? well he was on his way apparently, he wasn't coming from too far away, maybe 45 mns/1 hour drive. ....the party started at around 11h00 am, all the guest waited for him, by 2h30 pm it was decided to have lunch served since no one really knew when or if he'd show up.
Finally just before the cake was served around 4 pm, the father of the child arrived with his usual entourage of deadbeats !
What's the first thing he did ? go to the buffet with his friends and help themselves to some food.
Then he sat away from the crowd eating and drinking, he didn't even get up from his chair when my great nephew with the help of his mother cut the first slice of the cake.
My wife asked him how he was and his answer was " I think i'm pissed ".
When my niece first found out that she was pregnant, he disappeared for the first few months....
He seems to care a lot more about his appearance, with the latest trendy rapper looks, jewelry and all, just so that he can look like a really poor kid from the bronx, than he does about my niece and his child.
He's got no social skills whatsoever, last time my niece and him visited some family, he stayed in the car for the whole time not even bothering to come out to say hello.
The guy can't even eat spaghettis with a fork as my parents in law told us. He was invited there for lunch one day and well he really struggled with the fork concept so he ended up eating with his fingers.
All that, I am willing to forgive to an extent but turning up late and pissed for your child's first birthday is totally unforgivable ! All I can hope for my niece is that she eventually kicks him out and find someone else that will care for this kid.
So if creating a kid via DI with intent to give them love is more of a crime than being biologically linked to a child that you do not care about then I am guilty as charged.
Take some time to ponder those last two statistics while you're here.
1 - Over half of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the US in 1988 were unintended (56%). As many of those pregnancies ended in abortion (44%) as in birth (43%).
2 - In 1996, over half a million young women under age 20 gave birth, and two-thirds of those were unintended.
1 - Forrest JD. Epidemiology of unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1994;170:1485-1489.
2 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific birth rates for teenagers-United States, 1990-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997;46:837-842.
He's a cute little boy with big dreamy eyes.
For the occasion the whole family got together. His grandfather had rented one of those inflatable jumping castle, they were kids of all ages running around smiling and laughing. My niece and her friends had organised lots of games to keep the little ones happy. A real feast had been organised to cater for both adults and children.
Well it was one hell of a 1st birthday, that's for sure !
However there was something missing or I should say someone. Someone really important. Someone that this little man ought to be looking up to.
I think you guessed it ...his dad wasn't there !
The all mighty biological father of this child wasn't part of the festivities !
So where was he ? well he was on his way apparently, he wasn't coming from too far away, maybe 45 mns/1 hour drive. ....the party started at around 11h00 am, all the guest waited for him, by 2h30 pm it was decided to have lunch served since no one really knew when or if he'd show up.
Finally just before the cake was served around 4 pm, the father of the child arrived with his usual entourage of deadbeats !
What's the first thing he did ? go to the buffet with his friends and help themselves to some food.
Then he sat away from the crowd eating and drinking, he didn't even get up from his chair when my great nephew with the help of his mother cut the first slice of the cake.
My wife asked him how he was and his answer was " I think i'm pissed ".
When my niece first found out that she was pregnant, he disappeared for the first few months....
He seems to care a lot more about his appearance, with the latest trendy rapper looks, jewelry and all, just so that he can look like a really poor kid from the bronx, than he does about my niece and his child.
He's got no social skills whatsoever, last time my niece and him visited some family, he stayed in the car for the whole time not even bothering to come out to say hello.
The guy can't even eat spaghettis with a fork as my parents in law told us. He was invited there for lunch one day and well he really struggled with the fork concept so he ended up eating with his fingers.
All that, I am willing to forgive to an extent but turning up late and pissed for your child's first birthday is totally unforgivable ! All I can hope for my niece is that she eventually kicks him out and find someone else that will care for this kid.
So if creating a kid via DI with intent to give them love is more of a crime than being biologically linked to a child that you do not care about then I am guilty as charged.
Take some time to ponder those last two statistics while you're here.
1 - Over half of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the US in 1988 were unintended (56%). As many of those pregnancies ended in abortion (44%) as in birth (43%).
2 - In 1996, over half a million young women under age 20 gave birth, and two-thirds of those were unintended.
1 - Forrest JD. Epidemiology of unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1994;170:1485-1489.
2 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific birth rates for teenagers-United States, 1990-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997;46:837-842.
posted by MAX at 4:20 PM
9 Comments:
i can see your point, however i still don't agree that donor conception can ever be in the best interests of the child/person born as a result. Sure you intend to give this child so much love, but that can never replace the bonds one should choose to have or not to have with one or both biological parents.
The thing i keep coming back to is the article in the UN convention on the rights of the child that states no child should be seperated from their parents unless the said parent is seen as unfit.
And in this case you have mentioned perhaps it is not in this child's best interests to live with their father, however they should have the opportunity to know him.
You are right that there are so many situations in modern family life that see fathers neglecting their roles and mothers too for that matter, but i don't see how that then means it's ok to create a child because he might not like his biological father anyway.
I don't know if i'm making sense. I really do see what you mean, but at the end of the day i can't see how it's ok to deny a person the chance to grow up with their parents if there's been no harm to begin with...
Rel,
" Sure you intend to give this child so much love, but that can never replace the bonds one should choose to have or not to have with one or both biological parents."
I certainly would not stop my DC child from meeting their biological parent should they wish to do so as soon as they have reached a level of maturity necessary for such a meeting.
"The thing i keep coming back to is the article in the UN convention on the rights of the child that states no child should be seperated from their parents unless the said parent is seen as unfit."
I agree with the core of what you are saying but I think that the UN statement doesn't actually necessarly supports your point as they are using the word "parent" which has a very broad meaning...note that they didn't specify whether the parent ought to be biologically related to the child or not therefore leaving that statement up for interpretation.
"And in this case you have mentioned perhaps it is not in this child's best interests to live with their father, however they should have the opportunity to know him."
In this case, the child already has the opportunity to know his father, but it's the father who doesn't seem to want to know about the child.
"You are right that there are so many situations in modern family life that see fathers neglecting their roles and mothers too for that matter, but i don't see how that then means it's ok to create a child because he might not like his biological father anyway."
This argument centers on the idea that it's not because you are unhappy that it is ok to make others unhappy. Such a concept might sound good but it is flawed because I could easily turn it around and say that by denying an infertile person (and this person might very well be a child ) the chance of having a baby through DI you are also intently causing them harm.
In conclusion:
We could continue to argue those points till the cows come home, seriously I think that progress and understanding will only come if compromises are reached on both side of the fence.
There is definitively a need to have such procedures reviewed but legislations must address both parties equally and I personally do not believe that abolition of such a practice is a viable solution, It's one thing to pass a law but if it cannot be policed it's basically worthless.
It would be silly to think that just because a law is in place the practice would instantly stop. It would only open a new niche market in gametes trafficking.
i agree that banning it is not the ultimate solution, but in a perfect world in my view there would be no donor conception.
i mean if you think about adoption, is giving a baby away for adoption encouraged nowadays? no it's not. Why is that? Because it's seen in the best interests of the child to be kept with it's mother and family.. so why are we doing the exact opposite with donor conception and creating these severed family ties with donor conceived people.
it just simply does not make sense to me. it will never be "in the best interests of the child" in my mind.
Rel,
In a perfect world there would be no need to use DI because infertility wouldn't exist.
unfortunately for both you and I, we do not live in a perfect world and therefore we have to do with what we've got. However to be fair your last statement is mostly true but "the best interest of the child" is mostly decided by adults in every facets of a child's life and therefore such a statement is open to debate and can be corrupted to suit one's own set of values.
Yes, but infertility is not something man-made, it is an unfortante thing that can't be helped, whereas donor conception is something people create, which in turn creates more problems (i think).
I know we will never agree on all of this...
Rel,
I've just read through some of the sections of the UN convention liked to your site. I think your point about being separated from parents is an interesting one. I know dictionary.com can hardly be described as a legitimate academic source but their definition of 'parent' is as follows:
# One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.
# An ancestor; a progenitor.
# An organism that produces or generates offspring.
# A guardian; a protector.
Their definition of the verb to parent says:
# To act as a parent to; raise and nurture: “A genitor who does not parent the child is not its parent” (Ashley Montagu).
# To cause to come into existence; originate
I appreciate that the definitions they have provided can be used to argue the case either way but I thought it was an interesting thing to share here. That said, the correct term for a biological father or mother is, I suppose, a genitor. Not that anyone would know what you meant when you said it, but it is the technically correct term for someone who is directly genetically related to a child but did not necessarily parent them. That said I don't think I ever called my parents my genitors ;-)
A more interesting point raised in the UN Convention, I think, is Article 9 which states:
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
The use of the word "illegally" is odd because it opens up the question of whether it's ok if some law or other says so. I kind of thought the whole idea of UN conventions was to define the law. Still, the statement is pretty clear to me. If a person's biological heritage is not part of their identity then I'm not sure what is.
Just thought I'd share these thoughts with you.
Richard
Hey Richard,
I know that the term parent is open for much interpretation now, however i do beleive that at the time this document was written up and given that it talks about the seperation of a person from their "parents" i believe they are talking about biological parents. And yes, of course this could be argued by anyone depending on their position.
And i am happy that you noticed article 9 and it's relevance without me having to point it out. I believe this is the way in which i and others in my position have been duped the most. Not only does it state on birth certificates that giving false or misleading information is illegal, but the state and government actually aid this legal fiction with donor conceived people. I think it is a direct breach of this article and my human rights.
I don't know my true identity and the laws that governed my conception allowed this. It's not right at all. The governments here in Australia and around the world have a lot to answer for as far as i am concerned.
Rel,
I'm not gonna argue the point about the use of the word parent. I think we've already agreed to disagree about that one. :-)
With regards to Article 9 and the placing of information about a biological parent on the birth certificate we have a bit of a problem. I think we could probably agree that the donor is not and should not be recognised as the 'legal' father of a child conceived this way. As the birth certificate is recognised as the statement of a child's legal parents then it seems right to me that the non-related parent should appear there.
Should there be an indication on the certificate that the registered father is not biologically related? I can see why this could be argued as it would encourage parents to be honest with their children but there are some other issues. Certainly in the UK, the Register of Births is a matter of public record and anyone can ask to see anyone else's birth certificate. Given that, some seriously extreme people out there are prepared to go to some pretty horrible lengths to put their opinions across I'd be concerned that people could use this information to locate, harass and attack my children or me and my wife for the personal decisions that we have made and in which our children had no say. I'm thinking in particular of some extremely right-wing religious groups who oppose DC or assisted conception technology of any kind. These are personal decisions and, even once a child knows the nature of their conception, it should be up to them to decide who they wish to tell.
That said, I think that there should probably be some way of ensuring that the information reaches a DC person once they come of age (I know we're probably not gonna agree here). If a parent knows that their child will, one-day, know the truth I think most parents would rather tell their kids early instead of letting someone else do it. Why should it be when they turn 18? Well, I can see the case for why it should be earlier, but our societies insist that it is up to a child's legal parents to decide what is best for them until they are recognised in law as an adult. Whether we like it or not, that is a fundamental principle of our society and I don't believe the state should have a right to violate that.
What is the answer? I don't really know.
I have discussed this with many people, including people at births deaths and marriages.
The best we have come up with is having 2 birth certificates, one that you use for such things as getting a license etc.. and the other a more personal and TRUE reflection of your identity, that can be available to the donor conceived person.
I know it would be hard to ensure, but i would like to see some mechanism in place that means NO donor conceived person is lied to about their identity and that BD&M are to inform people once they reach 18, if they have not already been told.
This could be better managed if clinics were linked with BD&M, although in saying this i realise there will still be cases of people sidestepping the law so that they don't have to tell their children the truth.
Hrmmmm... all i can think is that this is yet another crucial and ethical problem that just highlights for me why the practice is so fundementally flawed.
Post a Comment
<< Home