Tag Archives: Donor conceived
I deal with insomnia – nothing seems to solve it so I watch TV quietly or read. This morning it was TV – the Canadian show - Ancestors in the Attic – that comes up with interesting story lines, and condenses it into a half-hour. Below is the episode I saw this morning – I am not great at recapping, and it will be choppy, but I think you will get the highlights. Read the rest of this entry »
Two talks from Ted but seem so right on an adoption blog. I am sure there are many marketers working hard in the background to hype adoption as the solution to everyone’s problems…the most visible is of course calling an expectant mother a birthmother (one word)…but there is so much more…
Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man
“Advertising adds value to a product by changing our perception, rather than the product itself. Rory Sutherland makes the daring assertion that a change in perceived value can be just as satisfying as what we consider “real” value — and his conclusion has interesting consequences for how we look at life.
Rory Sutherland stands at the center of an advertising revolution in brand identities, designing cutting-edge, interactive campaigns that blur the line between ad and entertainment.”
The second Ted talk that strikes me as right…
Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?
“Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational, uses classic visual illusions and his own counterintuitive (and sometimes shocking) research findings to show how we’re not as rational as we think when we make decisions.
It’s become increasingly obvious that the dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In “Predictably Irrational,” Dan Ariely tells us why.”
I’ve spent my free time today working on my [adoptive] dads’ family tree. I had a duplicate entry, and stupidly deleted the wrong one – not the duplicate - but the one that also deleted all the ancestors and sources. Joy. Good news is I am back to the early 1600′s again, and also took the time to refresh my knowledge of his ancestors who first came to the Colonies and the road they had to travel to just eek out a life. Knowing the type of people they had to be to survive and carry on – I see dad in them because that was the type of person he was as well.
Every single time I work on any of my trees - it reminds me that so many adoptees have no ability to do that – to know the road travelled by those who went before. Donor conceived face the same struggle as adoptees, and yet the industry keeps creating more and more without giving a damn what the donor conceived will face. It is all so very wrong, and no one seems to care, or if they do speak up they are shot down. People are so desperate to get what they want – they forget they are choosing to go forward knowing their children - will be denied the right to know where they come from, and they may want that very much as well. Seems so very ignorant.
Found a new blog written by a social worker in Belgium who now works in adoption aftercare, who was asked by an English-speaking adoptee to translate some of the posts into English. You can read about the author of Adoption Coach here. I read the posts already translated with interest, and am linking to the first post on the blog and hope you read it – at the end of the post is a poem written by Lut Celie called “Listen” it really says it all, and hopefully speaks to some who wish to tell adoptees how they should feel.
Damian Adams at “Donated Generation” posts “Caroline Lorbach and myself have just had a paper published in a special edition of the Journal of Law and Medicine which focuses on donor conception here in Australia.” that post includes the abstract and link to publication. He also did a short post a while back that I intended to link to but forgot A Story to Help People Understand.
I took a look at the special edition of the Journal of Law and Medicine on donor conception in Australia and there are many articles I wish I could read, one abstract in particular caught my eye and adoptees will understand why - it seems that the same argument used against adoptee rights (mothers were promised confidentiality but the adoption industry cannot provide a written promise) may also problematic in the fertility industry – they may not be able to provide proof. “Keeping mum about dad: “Contracts” to protect gamete donor anonymity – Anne Rees” “This article considers the legal status of so-called contracts for anonymity between fertility clinics and donors of gametes that were made in the period before legislation authorising disclosure. [...] The writer has not been able to locate examples of written promises by the clinics promising anonymity. There are written promises by the donors not to seek the identity of the recipients. These promises do not bind the resulting offspring nor do they appear to be supported by consideration.”
Australian Government to Apologise Over Forced Adoptions ”The Australian Government today announced it will issue a formal apology to those affected by forced adoption practices.”
A very interesting post by Alama ya Kitumaini ”Sign of Hope” urging caution and providing questions to ask if you are adopting in the DRC. Good post and discussion - but of course, in the comments is the question why once AP’s have their children home do they suddenly become concerned with ethics. It’s a method of trying to shut down the conversation and has such an obvious answer – they too were naive going into adoption and trusted their agencies – only to figure things out when it was too late or worse when their child could speak enough English to explain they weren’t orphans! That question always makes me think about AP’s who state that their children are happy and won’t be like us adult adoptees who criticize adoption. Speaking of which - someone did a post last week linking to a blog post on fundraising written by Shadow, and then identified that Shadow had a lot of criticisms about adoption – no, Shadow is the nice one, again, I am the one who will criticize HOW adoption is practiced - which is different from criticizing an adoption when it is the done properly - after family preservation efforts have failed. I am honestly amazed that people still cannot see the difference between hating all things adoption and talking about problems within the adoption industry. Adoption can be done ethically by protecting the rights of all and most of all the child and is a solution in some cases - I don’t disagree with that – it is the probalematic practices that drive me batty - but they do need to fix the laws for adoptee rights to our own original birth certificate in every single closed records state.
What posts did you read this week?
Search term that brought someone to this blog that just JUMPED OUT at me today – how on earth could anyone even remotely consider it acceptable…
adoption fraud is not human trafficking
Really? Okay I know the USA does not have it under their official definition of human trafficking, but it comes pretty darn close to it, if not meets the definition. Of course that is just my position, but I do know others agree with me. Lets stop and think of the advantages to the CHILD if the USA did include adoption fraud in the definition of human trafficking. There would be real laws with plenty of teeth and jail time for anyone convicted in either country. That would mean they would have a real incentive to ensure the CHILD is actually available for adoption. That would mean they would not casually accept falsified paperwork by the brother of the police chief, or the person who said claims they are the biological parent. That would mean they would do DNA testing for all adoptions to ensure the person surrendering was actually the person they say they are. I could go on and on and on. It would mean everyone actually acting in the childs best interest - not the bottom line, the PAP waiting, just the child. What a concept.
And that does not even begin to take into consideration the life-time impact on the child, or the adopting parents who have to live with the fact their child may not have needed to be adopted.
I do realize the demand drives the supply and if only those actually available for adoption were adopted then some PAPs would be out of luck…oh well…no one should ever accept those two words being linked – you know “adoption” and “fraud” they just don’t work together where as “ethical” and “adoption” work very nicely together. Adoption fraud is wrong. No getting around it – it is wrong, wrong and still wrong. Put yourself in the child’s REAL parents shoes and what would YOU call it then.
IN OTHER THOUGHTS…
I watched C.S.I. M.i.a.m.i. the other night. The one where the sperm “donor” (quotes because he was paid) was murdered. You knew it was bound to show up on a show sometime. The storyline talked about him having 103 kids out there as confirmed on the Donor Sibling Registry, yet they forgot that annoying estimate by the industry that only 80% of parents tell their children. When you stop and think about that the 103 being 20% of his children…you could estimate what 500 or so children, but of course he still had frozen sperm at the clinic because part of the plot was the destruction of the sperm.
Turns out the “donor” was a carrier for Turner disease that destroys your liver, and you know you need your liver to live. They had to add more drama in that one of the mothers used a surrogate and delivered identical twins and kept one. They spun the story to the ninth degree to make it just as juicy as it could possible get. Thankfully, they didn’t make one of the children the guilty one, but they certainly focused on the children as the foremost suspects, instead of looking to the spouse which statistics prove most likely to be the one.
It did try to stereotype the donor conceived much like adoptees have been stereotyped on TV. I think less than the stereotype of adoptees, because the “donor” was a successful person and of course the mothers were all upstanding people who just wanted to parent, so the “genes” weren’t suspect like adoptees.
But at the end of the day it did stereotype and cast suspicion on donor conceived to some degree, but it also raised the red flag about the risks for genetic diseases without knowledge provided, and it also raised the red flag about the sheer number of children from one sperm “donor”.
Mixed feelings about it and I am not particularly fond of the show to begin with, so that’s my take on it.
Very mixed selection of links I have enjoyed lately that you may like.
From The Land of Gazillion Adoptees: Podcast, 16 – The Big Picture: LGA’s Talks with David M. Smolin . Listen to this two-part podcast and then read Prof. Smolin’s most recent paper found here.
From the strange math category and how the spin doctors hope you only read the headline. ASRM Press Release: Data from Sperm Bank Users Show More Still Prefer Anonymous Donation; Often Fail to Report Pregnancies
Researchers from the Genetics and IVF Institute surveyed thousands of their customers over the last three years. They report that demand for anonymous donation remains high, with 38% of respondents saying they preferred anonymous donors, 20% preferred identified donors and 42% were willing to use either.
From the Center for Genetics and Society New Study Links Egg Harvesting for IVF to Ovarian Cancer speaking to the study linked above that also asks the question of whether or not women who donate their eggs, are being educated about the risk.
All About Ami which is a blog about crocheting. This post is about the cutest ever Christmas ornaments that I want to try making this year. Crochet Corner: Teddy Ornaments which has link embedded to the pattern.
Fathers and Family site has this post: Utah Paper Ramps Up Pressure for Father’s Rights.
An older paper from Canada in 2009 celebrating the 20th Anniversary of signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child reporting on the progress and challenges of implementing this convention. Best Interests of the Child: Meaning and Application in Canada. Talking about adoption starts on page 35 but other parts are very interesting so have a look through as hard topics and the questions posed such as when religious beliefs can harm a child what is the protection and how is it balanced, First Nations children being removed from their own communities, recent immigrants and refugees children. They asked very thought-provoking questions on a variety of topics and pointed out that Canada still has a long way to go to ensure compliance with the Convention in regards to adoptees…pg 37 speaks about the concerns of discriminatory legislation and policy that privileges the rights of non-adopted children.
From the blog Holt Adoption Product: Borrowing the word “bullying” and after you read it, but before you respond with that “happened years ago”, just a couple of days ago I was watching a group of commentors talk about the current political race (can’t remember which station), one of the black commentors brought up the color coding comments made and the white commenter next to him told him that those words weren’t color coding and they weren’t racist..okay then…
From iAdoptee: The Client which really shows the absurdity of the reality faced by adult adoptees…
And finally from Huffington Post: Violence Against Women Is a Global Pandemic