On November 2, 2010, Elizabeth Marquardt testified before the Australian Senate. Her remarks included this statement: 'But I also want to make clear that - even with openness - the problems [allegations that donor-conceived children are more prone to social and legal trouble] do not completely go away. There seems to be something else about knowing that the person who raised you also deliberately denied you your other parent before you were even born'.I'm not sure a defense of donor conception that says "adoption is just as bad" is very effective! But the piece does raise some interesting points. What do you think?
To those who know about donor conception, the words 'deliberately denied you your other parent' are striking. They seem to allege a wrong. This is no accident of wording, but a foreshadowing of Marquardt's agenda of condemning all donor conception on the grounds that it denies the child access to his or her biological parents. This might be a respectable position, if Marquardt didn't simultaneously praise adoption, despite the end result being the same.
Adoption Initiative Conference 2022
2 years ago
1 comment:
I think donor conception is much like adoption...in that there are many "gray areas".
In many cases, donor conception is creating an adoptee, and donor "kids" have even more difficulties finding out where they come from, and have the same dismissive attitudes thrown at them from society. (as far as wanting to know their heritage or biological family,etc)
As many of these kids are now coming of age, we are seeing the many similarities they have with adoptees....even the "primal wound" in some surrogacy cases. These kids are just now starting to talk about their experiences.
Like I said...all sorts of gray areas. Weird science, in my opinion.
Post a Comment