« Summer squash | Main | ! »
07/18/2007
If it's Wednesday, I must be finally getting around to Sunday's paper
This morning Paul and I were messaging about Peggy Orenstein's outstanding article on donor eggs in the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
Paul, quoting the article: "One newly pregnant woman told me she picked her donor because the woman liked The Princess Bride. 'Some donors chose Pulp Fiction, and their favorite color was black,' she said. 'That's just not me. If I have the choice between someone who likes The Princess Bride or someone who likes Pulp Fiction, everything else being equal, I'm going for Princess Bride.'"
Paul: What do you want a donor's favorite movie to be?
Julie: I guess Rosemary's Baby is right out, huh?
Paul: Probably.
Julie: Manos: The Hands of Fate?
Paul: Aieee.
Julie: Wait, wait, I know! I know this one! Call on me! Call on me!
Paul: Yes, Horshack?
Julie: Staying Alive!
An hour later I am still waiting for his response. I think he might have fainted.
I admit it: I approach articles in the popular press about ART with a chip already on my shoulder, my hackles expectantly raised, my dudgeon pre-emptively high. So seldom do they get it right, without sensationalism, with sympathy. So I avoided reading Orenstein's article for a few days, even though several of you were kind enough to point it out to me last week. I should have known better; Orenstein, the author of Waiting for Daisy1, herself a veteran of infertility and loss, gets it.
The article examines the complex questions recipients of donor eggs face. What are the ethical ramifications of donation, essentially paying for eggs? Do you tell your child about his origins? If so, how and when? How will you handle what one researcher calls "resemblance talk," the casual questions in the grocery store checkout line about whose blue eyes the child has? What will it mean for your child to have a genetic relationship to your partner and not you? Should the child have a right to information about his donor, a name, a meeting, a relationship? And, oh, yes, how silly of me, I almost forgot: Why don't you just adopt?
Orenstein's article came just in time. These are all questions I've contemplated, where "contemplated" means "whipped myself into a late-night heartburny lockjawed paralysis of anxiety over." But I hadn't set them down in such a straightforward, organized way as Orenstein has — a kind of final exam, essay format, in 300-level ART2. And she was even thoughtful enough to provide sample answers from the women she interviewed. As I read the article, I asked myself, "How do I feel about...?" And if the answer didn't immediately present itself, I read a bit further, considering the answers her subjects gave, then asked myself, "Do I agree?"
I say the article came just in time because on Tuesday, Paul and I have an appointment with our clinic's social worker to discuss just such matters. These are not the kinds of questions one should answer off the top of one's head, especially since when Paul and I were messaging, the first movie that came to mind was Faces of Death.
Disclosure. To tell or not to tell. Many people find that to be the thorniest question of all. As Orenstein reports, most donor recipients — 75% in one study — have not told their children they came from donor gametes. And she's careful to point out that research has shown these uninformed children to be as well adjusted as any others as of age 12. (Secrecy may not be inherently damaging, but we can only speculate about how well adjusted these children will remain if one day they find out.)
Most women I know, and the women Orenstein interviewed, plan to tell. Another researcher has found no negative repercussions among children who were told about their origins early in childhood, confirming that instinct. Among families who do disclose, many parents express relief at having told their children, "as if a weight had been lifted." And the children involved, says one researcher Orenstein consulted, expressed a range of feelings from neutral to positive. "Nobody regretted telling," said the researcher. "Nobody."
There has never been a question for me. If I believe that a biological connection is worth something — and if I didn't, this blog would be about three entries long — how can I then deny the very existence of one, even if it's not to me?
Besides, I can't deny that secrets, particularly those kept from the people they most profoundly affect, scare me. I like how noble I sound when I say, "I cannot imagine keeping such knowledge from a child," but if I'm honest, I have to admit that I always finish that sentence in my mind with "...and having him somehow find out later." Of course it would happen. My God, I've told the whole world, on my blog, on message boards, in chats; any hope of reproductive secrecy dissolved the moment I invented the Internet.
Just do me a favor, if you please. If, hypothetically speaking, I should have a child through donor eggs, and you should ever happen to meet him, please, I am begging you, do not ever, ever tell him I watch Staying Alive every single time it's on. Some secrets, after all, have the power to destroy entire families.
SPECIAL BONUS ORENSTEIN: I have not yet listened to this NPR interview with Peggy Orenstein, but I'm told it's good and I certainly will.
1 I've had this book on my desk since Orenstein kindly had it sent to me before its release. I read it with great relish, and I swear I will review it in detail...um, sometime. While you wait, pining, may I direct you to the always excellent Stirrup Queens and Sperm Palace Jesters, where Mel organized a virtual tour for the book?
2 100 level: Charting; timed intercourse; Clomid; inseminations.
200
level: IVF; ICSI; FET.
300 level: Repeated failures; third-party
involvement; experimental treatment.
400 level: The end of the line; holy wand-wielding
Jesus, I'm pregnant with quints.
Posted by Julie at 01:51 PM in I've learned a lot...but I'm not sure it's worth it. | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/8256/20137518
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If it's Wednesday, I must be finally getting around to Sunday's paper:
Comments (62)
I am excited for you. Despite all the potential risks for you healthwise, I am still excited.
Posted by: Danielle at Jul 18, 2007 2:13:23 PM
OMG, the 1st comment?!?!? i don't post much, but i wanted to wish you luck on tuesday!! i think you should def answer the question with play doh illustrations!
as someone in 100-level ART it's interesting to see someone else's reactions to stuff i may potentially face someday!
Posted by: laura m at Jul 18, 2007 2:15:53 PM
Such complex issues. I don't envy you. But I admire that you give this so much thought from an ethical perspective. I'm a firm believer in having a baby anyway a person can and feels comfortable with (short of kidnapping, that is). But such things shouldn't be glossed over, and the fact that you are thinking about them so completely ("thinking" meaning, "dissolving into a roiling mass of confused ambivalence") is a testament to your thoughtfulness and attention as a parent.
Good luck, Julie.
~C~
Posted by: Catharine at Jul 18, 2007 2:35:10 PM
I read this article and breathed such a relieved sigh when I did ... as you said, FINALLY .. someone who gets it. And who focuses on the things that really do come up as a parent to donor-conceived children! As a single mom to 4.5 year old twins conceived with DE and DS, it all rang true to me. All of it. Although I'll admit the resemblance talk doesn't really bother me all that much any more. At first, yes, I felt like a liar and poseur, as though I had to disclose to these total strangers where my daughter got her beautiful blue eyes. But ya know what? My kids DO look like my family. I chose donors with a family history located roughly in the same part of the world as mine, and my egg donor looked like she could have come from my family as well. So yeah, the girls DO look like folks in my family. I don't think that's a lie at all -- they either do or they don't. Saying they do doesn't mean you're also claiming a direct genetic relationship. But anyway ...
I am so glad this article came to you at this particular point in time, because it is just so spot on. If it helps in any way for you to get your brain around the whole donor gamete thing, then it has served a great purpose. Oh, and the Terri Gross interview is great as well (as I suspected it would be - Terri is a great interviewer!).
P.S. full discloser here -- the girls at 4.5 already have some rudimentary understanding of "their story", as much of the whole thing as they can understand, and both my donors are willing to be known. One day, if they care to, they can meet their donors.
Posted by: Jo at Jul 18, 2007 2:37:55 PM
Oh, and just a little assvice that you didn't ask for. I tend to be a bit of an open book -- wasn't embarrassed by using DE and told a lot of folks about it when I was in the process and pregnant. Now, looking back, and looking at these two little girls of mine, I would have to say that I wish I had just kept things a bit more private. People still are pretty ignorant about such matters, and in the end the information does belong to the children (I believe, at least). Given you already have Charlie, perhaps this isn't a pitfall for you (you know, the reality of how things impact this living, breathing child rather than this hypothetical construct he is/was prior to birth). But FWIW, I do wish I had kept the information a bit more close to me in retrospect, just in the interest of the children involved. More of a "need to know" thing, IYKWIM. I'm talking RL here, not the internets.
Posted by: Jo at Jul 18, 2007 2:43:54 PM
Hi Julie-
Haven't commented in a long long time, but I actually had a dream about you last night (provoked, I think, by reading Orenstein's article on Tuesday, which made me think of you).
In my dream you and I were coordinating a mass mailing of "lucky shoes" that had been custom decorated for infertile women. Bizarre...I think my unconscious stole this symbol from Anne Lamott's novel Blue Shoe (in which two characters trade a rubber shoe back & forth over many months as they taken turns focusing on each other's problems).
The thing is that I just found out that my sister-in-law, who knows all about my series of losses before Turtle was born, has been struggling for years to conceive. I sent her the URL for your blog, hoping you or someone on your blogroll would be the support for her that you were for me. In other words, having gotten through infertility with a lot of help from you & your posse, I passed her the shoe. But I'm afraid she'll be passing it back sometime...because, like you, I'd like a second child & the road looks rocky.
All this is to say, I am amazed by how much the connections I formed through the IF blogworld have meant in my life & how reluctant I feel to entirely leave this community, even though my membership card isn't active.
I wish you well next week!
-Anne
Posted by: ManhattanAnne at Jul 18, 2007 2:45:14 PM
You can't beat eggs from a woman who loves the original '70s classic, The Omen.
I forgot how shiny Travolta was in that movie. (Though I still love his skort.) Was he less oiled in Perfect?
I caught a few minutes of Peggy's interview with Terry Gross yesterday. The highlight: When explaining the process of egg donation, she mentioned the step where the man "uh, has a date with his hand."
Posted by: Orange at Jul 18, 2007 2:47:48 PM
I can only hypothetically relate to so much of what you say here, but Staying Alive? *That* I get.
And now, "I wanna strut."
Posted by: T. at Jul 18, 2007 2:48:37 PM
Finally a well written article on this. Still, I wonder, why are there more ethical misgivings about paying for eggs as opposed to paying for sperm? They are both gametes, and one will not work without the other. Is it less essential that the child be biologically related to his father than his mother?
Interesting dicussion in it about men donating for cash, while donor women were expected to be altruistic. Seems like a little bit of sociologic hypocricy going on, IMO.
Posted by: SarahD at Jul 18, 2007 3:00:26 PM
We went through a lot of this when we used donor sperm. Although we were trying for our first child, the self-flagellation was much the same. Our donor sperm cycles were never successful, and we ended up conceiving spontaneously. And now I'm more than a little bit embarassed at how much joy I find in the myriad ways my daughter resembles my husband.
This is all hard. Genetics are tricky and society is, by and large, stupid. Ages ago, Grrl called it "the luxury of a family you don't have to explain."
Posted by: runnerwoman at Jul 18, 2007 3:07:12 PM
Thank you for the link; I will read the article.
We're in the telling camp. My daughter will be three next month, and she already knows that mommy needed help from the doctor to have her. We have a couple of books that are geared towards telling kids about donor eggs, and ART generally, but she hasn't shown much interest in them yet.
Lately, she's been enjoying watching me get my Lupron shots that I'm taking to prepare for my FET (weird, eh?). I just hope she isn't disappointed that she can have a baby the "normal" way (or at least I hope that she doesn't have to go through this shit).
Posted by: midlife mommy at Jul 18, 2007 3:10:01 PM
I've only read part of the article so far, but it's interesting, and applies to me, though from a different perspective. I was an egg donor twice, a few years ago.
I've told very few people about donating - frankly, there's a stigma attached to it. If it comes up in conversation somehow, most of the women I know shake their heads (in judgment, confusion, mistrust?) and say, "I'D never do something like that." I obviously didn't feel the same, but I don't really want to have that conversation with casual acquaintances.
I donated, honestly, because of the money (so, yes, not really a donation). I was paid $10,500 total for the two donations. I understand the desire to bear a child and give birth, and I was certainly willing to help a family achieve that, but I wouldn't have gone through several months of pills and injections and tests and no drinking and no sex without getting paid for it - at least not for someone I don't know. For a family member or friend, that's another story. Perhaps that makes me sound selfish, but it's the truth.
As an egg donor, I gave up all rights to any children that might be born from the 32 eggs (total) that were harvested. I don't know if any pregnancies resulted, or if any children were born. I never will. Mostly, I'm okay with that, but occasionally I wonder.
I wonder what will happen if I ever see a little girl or boy who looks like me and is about the right age. I wonder if I'll want to ask the parents about their child, to subtly probe for information. I wonder if I'll ever have any difficulty getting pregnant, and how that will change my view on all of this. I wonder who they are, and who they'll become.
I'm currently 28 - I was 25 and 26 for my donations - and don't have children yet, nor any particular urge to. I'm sure that will change in the near future (I'm getting married soon and would like to have kids relatively soon, but not for a few years yet), but for now, I'm good. I'm glad I donated. I hope it's not a service I ever need myself, but if it is, I'll take advantage of it.
Posted by: Allison at Jul 18, 2007 3:26:27 PM
I heard the NPR interview and it was very good. And while listening, I thought of you. Best wishes for the road ahead.
Posted by: Kelly at Jul 18, 2007 3:39:26 PM
Julie, I found your site Saturday night through another friend's blog. And I have spent the last few days reading the ENTIRE thing, alternating between laughter and tears. You're a gifted writer. You're hysterically funny. You're brilliant. And you're a kickass parent.
That's all I got.
Posted by: Patty at Jul 18, 2007 4:30:58 PM
Well, now we know the real reason you wouldn't pass an adoption screening: Staying Alive is completely indefensible. No one who ever watches the last ten minutes of that movie remains unscarred. I mean, the costumes alone! Never mind the choreography.
Posted by: kate at Jul 18, 2007 4:39:29 PM
Me again. Someone else mentioned books. I don't know if you were around IVFC when Karen Daniels was posting, but she has a gorgeous book that addresses ART/IVF/gamete donation/adoption. You can find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Baby-About-Be-Born/dp/1933570326/ref=sr_1_5/104-5624769-3623923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184791300&sr=1-5
Posted by: runnerwoman at Jul 18, 2007 4:42:35 PM
I agree, it was an excellent article. I read it Saturday evening and figured it would appear on your blog this week.
Posted by: ewe_are_here at Jul 18, 2007 4:46:47 PM
The NPR interview was so-so. At one point, in talking about her failed donor cycle, Orenstein said something like, "even his gametes couldn't be unfaithful to me." The sort of thing that makes us actual recipeints cringe. I like Peggy Orenstein, but since she ended up conceiving naturally, there's always an element of "Whew, that was close!" when she talks about donor eggs. Though admittedly, I may be looking for it.
We are in the telling camp as well. Partly because I think it's his right to know, and partly because I cannot keep a secret and it would absolutely eat me alive. Jack's only 13 months, but so far I don't find the resemblance talk particularly upsetting. Some people think he looks just like me, others see no resemblance at all. I imagine that's pretty similar to what genetic parents hear!
Posted by: Karen at Jul 18, 2007 4:49:27 PM
I thought Al Gore invented the Internet?
Posted by: Jill at Jul 18, 2007 4:51:54 PM
I heard the "Fresh Air" interview yesterday and thought it was excellent.
WRT telling, maybe this is the one area of reproduction where gay men and lesbians have the advantage? If we didn't tell, our son would bust us pretty early on in learning "the facts of life." So it never occurred to us not to tell him the truth.
BTW, Allison? If you ever do get curious about whether your eggs became babies, you can always check and/or register with the Donor Sibling Registry. If you and they or their parents register, you can learn a little bit more and decide whether or not to have contact.
Posted by: Liza at Jul 18, 2007 4:53:58 PM
Good post on a touchy subject! Thanks for the links. Hope all works out for you.
Posted by: carosgram at Jul 18, 2007 4:59:08 PM
I had a dream the other night that I was begging you to choose my eggs. I remember saying "But, look how cute my kids are! I know, I'm going to be 33 but I'm super fertile! I just can't carry them to term but that isn't their fault!" No, I've never donated eggs which makes it all the more surreal.
Posted by: kimblahg at Jul 18, 2007 6:04:28 PM
I heard a little bit of the NPR interview (while on the way to pick up my went-through-100-level-IF-to-have daughter from school, ironically) and plan to listen to all of it--thanks for the link. Donor gametes would not have been an option for us. We couldn't afford IVF, much less IVF-plus, and were pretty much set on adoption if our low-level treatments didn't work. I appreciate and admire the thought you have put into this entire process, from deciding for a second in the first place to how exactly to go about making this happen.
Posted by: AmyinMotown at Jul 18, 2007 6:09:09 PM
It was a good piece; thanks for your nice wrap-up.
Sometimes I wonder how and when to tell my child that she was an IVF baby...my eggs, his sperm...but there was that petri dish in the middle. But one day, she'll find the pregnancy book I made, in which the first picture is the photo of the embryos on transfer day. And then we'll have to talk about it.
Posted by: maggie at Jul 18, 2007 6:35:40 PM
i've been lurking for a while now, and this post really got under my skin as i red orenstein's article. probably i have no business posting---rather than struggling with IF, i'm kind of in the opposite camp. yes, i'm one of those people who got pregnant naturally, in fact while on a whole array of medications that were in fact supposed to have the side effect of preventing pregnancy (in my case to suppress allergies so severe that i had antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and required surgery). when i got pregnant at 23, the number of people who looked at me with arched eyebrows and made snotty comments like "well, are you HAPPY about it?! are you going to keep it? didn't you want to get more established in your career FIRST? didn't you want to be married first?" just astounded me. (especially since i was in a committed relationship and had graduated from college and i had a job in my chosen field, not that it's any of anyone else's business.) truly, who are these fuckers that question our life choices and how/when our children come to us? i mean, i don't ask relative strangers if THEY'RE considering abortion, fer chrissakes.
i came across your blog, julie, while researching infertility, when my former sister-in-law was undergoing treatments of her own. but i find that i personally relate to fears such as those described in orenstein's article (as well as from other posters) about comments like "oh, she has your adorable dimples!" and the latent judgement those comments represent and the pain that they cause.
anyway, i was just having a flash of a sisterhood moment myself.
seems assvice is not merely restricted to the infertile.
*sigh*
Posted by: suzanne at Jul 18, 2007 6:40:50 PM
As a woman who has taken the first steps towards becoming a Gestational Surrogate, I too had to ask myself many of these questions.
Big thumbs up to you. It's a hard place to be, and you sould so composed about it!
My movie? Finding Nemo
Posted by: bump-fairy at Jul 18, 2007 7:39:55 PM
Yeah, I'd tell about donor gametes. My sense of gulit is too powerfully developed to fib to a child of mine about their biological origins.
Besides, since I'm medical, I'd add that it is nice to know that when someone is telling me their family history of illnesses that they're referring to their bio family.
I have had a couple of instances where a patient has happily rattled it all off and then mentioned in the next breath they were adopted. Making it all a waste of ink and time on both our parts.
Posted by: jodi at Jul 18, 2007 8:17:33 PM
I think I peed a little when you mentioned Manos: Hands of Fate.
Posted by: libby at Jul 18, 2007 9:17:33 PM
Couldn't let Manos:The Hands of Fate slip by ... did you see it on Mystery Science Theater 3000, or unadulterated? Either way, I'm impressed.
Also, thank you for your blog. It's helping a whole lot of people feel connected, which is the best part of the Internet (thank you for that, too ... )=)
Posted by: Anne at Jul 18, 2007 9:35:01 PM
In some ways we're in the middle of the whole donor egg thing and also the beginning. After many many failed IVF cycles with my own eggs, we moved onto failed cycles with eggs donated by my sister. The failed DE cycles were in many ways so much more devastating because the hope for success was so much greater. So now we contemplate using an anonymous donor; another situation altogether as the genetic link to me, my parents, my grandparents will be completely severed. So I read the NY times article with great interest, and am not sure whether it was helpful, or whether it's just making me freak-out even more.
Posted by: ninaB at Jul 18, 2007 10:19:37 PM
Once I saw MANOS referenced, I couldn't remember what else, if anything I was going to say...
Reading this article has been quite interesting, albeit bittersweet. All those old layers of regret. It's hard to give up the wish for some kind of genetic connection, the inherited "family" connection, which is why, if we had gone through with trying DE, that I might have chosen based on appearance and ancestral background. Okay, I might have gone with a backpacker, too; I'd think you'd want to like the person whose gamates you are using. And what is it about women being more involved with picking *either* kind of donor? So we are looking for some personal connection even behind the layer of anonymity. Interesting...
Ironically, I thought about being a donor myself in my younger years. I liked the idea of helping people. Now I think: too bad I didn't freeze a few for myself.
As for Staying Alive, I firmly believe that some secrets are meant to be shared by parents, not by strangers. I won't tell!
Posted by: Marie at Jul 18, 2007 10:22:02 PM
Well I was adopted so it's a bit of a different situation, but I've had to deal with the "you look just like..." comments all my life. And I really don't. So I have come to realize that people either say it as a compliment, because it's expected, or because they are desperatley clining to some awkward conversational nugget. You are under no obligation to tell those people anything and I would think it would be best not to in most cases because you don't want the child to think that you don't want people to think that you resemble him. I always say "I'm glad you think so" or "That's interesting" and that's that. I'll tell people I'm close too that it's not bloody likely but I've found that in small talk that's kind of a show-stopper.
As far as revealing the specifics, I am in favor of 100% disclosure at the appropriate times. I'm glad that I have always known that I was adopted and there was never any big dramatic unveiling. I think my parents had a couple of kid's books that they read me as a toddler and I'm sure that they lumped the story of where I came from right along with the story of where babies come from. I think, at some point, the child should have ownership of the story. I know that at some stages of my life I really didn't want it to be the focal point of discussion so I hated it when my mom would bring it up in front of my friends (even though I am certain now that she was just trying to show how proud she was) but I wanted it to be my story to tell. I also think that any information that you have should be available..not hidden away. Not saying that you should be reading hospital records to a five year old a bed time story, just that there's common knowledge that any information you have also belongs to the child and they can have access to it when they are ready. My parents had a bunch of info filed away with my baby stuff that I just happened to find on my own and it was pretty upsetting, not that they had intentionally hidden it, just that it had never occured to them that it might be important to me.
Anyhow, I apologize for such a long comment, this one just struck a chord with me. I'm so excited for you. I obsess so much over things but really this is one of those situations where it just "is" so even though it's a huge big deal it's also not a big deal at all. My parents are my parents and I've honestly probably only pondered the implications of my genetic ties to them as much as I've pondered what life would be like if I had different color eyes or hair or any other such foregone conclusion. Or maybe I am just shallow!
Posted by: j at Jul 18, 2007 11:25:53 PM
My adopted daughter has bio halfsiblings that she would dearly love to meet, but the man her mother married is not on that page. When I told her that he didn't ever want them to know, she said, as only an 11 year old can, "Helloooo. They're going to find out, and they are going to FREAK."
Bright girl. I'm with you on the Keep No Secrets (except those involving John Travolta)
Posted by: Accidental Poet at Jul 19, 2007 12:39:56 AM
This quote really resonated with me: "It was her way of acknowledging that this (not being biologically related to her mom) means something to her that’s completely independent of her relationship to me. And that’s inevitable: no amount of being wanted, planned for or loved eliminates that piece of the experience.”
I love that this mom mentioned this. I have thought, at length, about the myriad ways not being biologically related to my child will affect my life, her life, our familes' lives, etc. This is such a beautiful and painful truth. I hope that when the time comes I can be as open to the consequences of being "open" as this therapist momma was!
Posted by: erin at Jul 19, 2007 1:11:09 AM
Since I work in the field, my main concern is not whether children conceived with donor sperm or eggs--or both--are well-adjusted or not, but whether their genetic heritage may not at some point come back to bite them, unbeknown. A friend of mine, adopted (too old to be the result of current ART technology), was diagnosed with MS and only then decided to research her origins. It turned out that her biological mother had numerous relatives with MS. At the time my friend was born, none had yet been diagnosed with it, and so her mother had had a "clean bill of health". And let's not get into potential incest issues, which I think are going to become more of a problem in future years. Here in Israel, among the Arab population, who love to marry first cousins, the results can be dire. Just think what might happen when two kids who have no idea of their genetic heritage but are both carriers for certain genetic conditions because they are actually close relatives, meet and marry. I don't have any answers for these concerns, but they are very real. Adopted children almost always, at some point, find out they are adopted; children conceived using donor sperm or eggs almost never do.
Posted by: Antigonos at Jul 19, 2007 3:27:47 AM
I know it is different, but I was told that I was adopted at such an early age I don't even recall being told. I was always glad I knew. I wasn't always glad it was true, I had moments of wanting to resemble my mother and father more. But, I was always glad I knew. If they had waited until I was older and supposedly more able to understand, I would have felt lied to. I know a friend who was told at 16 and it more or less destroyed her relationship with her family. Who is to decide the right age to tell a child anyhow? Of course, I am only explaining my experience. I feel I can easily put myself in a place where I was in fact not adopted, but conceived with more intention, with a donor egg and my father's sperm or vice versa and that is a situation I would have preferred to me in. There is then only a question about one part of one's biology and probably more answers than I have now about my biological parents.
If my parents had the choice you guys are contemplating I would have been happy for them. Happy for me too. I hope this makes sense.
My two nieces were conceived using donor sperm. I have no idea if my brother (also adopted) has told them. I will ask my sister in law, because my brother doesn't even like to talk about being adopted.
Oh, and I would not have cared about my biological genetics. Everyone has something that runs in the family. I do know my maternal genetics and they ain't Best in Show, but I do not care. I am here, my parents are fantastic, I feel lucky.
Posted by: jenB at Jul 19, 2007 3:44:16 AM
But... I don't know how she got away with a huge article about donor gametes and not mentioning even once the fact that lesbian couples and gay men are completely dependent on donor gametes (or adoption) to complete their families and that estimates are that lesbian couples buy 60-70% of donor sperm sold in the USA. Sure, she gets infertility, but she left out a huge part of the donor gamete conversation.
Posted by: jenny at Jul 19, 2007 8:25:12 AM
As a 2 times surrogate mother and 2 times eggs donor... It makes me uneasy to think that I might be someone dirty secrets. I consider myself as a allie, not a painfull reminder. That is why I only work with peoples that will tell the truth. How ever the couple might feel about it I think it is for the well being of the child. A child have a right to know where he come from. The truth is the best way to make sure that the "dirty secret" syndrom do not taint the rest of the child's life.
In a tengent, when I got preggo with my daughter, I was not a couple with her father. It would have been so much easier to just not tell him he was the father. It would make MY life easier bt she has the right to know her father and how I feel about him is pretty much my problem....not hers.
Posted by: yanicka at Jul 19, 2007 9:30:22 AM
I also just read Orenstein's article and I also liked it. Some on the Mothers Via Egg Donation (MVED) mailing group did not.
I also did not listen to her NPR interview, but she evidently said something stupid that some on the mailing list felt was insensitive.
Can you spot it?
Posted by: sheilah at Jul 19, 2007 1:10:06 PM
what strikes me about secrets is the lies you have to tell around them. There's one thing about a secret that never comes up (maybe that'll be true for you about the "staying alive thing"?). But, in our house, we have a lot of talk about the biological origins of our children (who were conceived and born the ordinary way). I think part of the reason these reproductive choices come up now is because we are so much more open about birth and how it happens than folks were in the 50's.
bj
BTW, I don't think "you have your grandfather's eyes" needs an answer. When someone says that, it doesn't have to mean "you received the genetic material on the appropriate set of chromosomes to produce eyes that look remarkably like your grandfather's eye phenotype" It means the child's eyes reminds someone of the grandfather's eyes. That connection can occur for a thousand reasons (some of which might be learned and passed on through generations -- the crinkle in the corner of the eye when you smile the same way, for example). The genes are what we're talking about when we are concerned that you may have to worry about the fact that your biological grandfather has huntington's, but it doesn't matter about eyes.
bj
Posted by: bj at Jul 19, 2007 1:55:41 PM
Oh, you must listen to the NPR piece, just got to the end of it. She is so articulate and clear. Especially the larger issue of whether or not to have kids and what it means to be a parent. I have never even tried to have a child (and am not ready to consider it yet) and I was really moved by her piece. Have a listen!
Posted by: Sylvie at Jul 19, 2007 2:21:51 PM
Julie,
FYI, I nominated you for Rockin' Girl Blogger (I would be happier if it was Rockin' Womyn Blogger, but hey!). Mostly because eveytime I read your blog I fall our of my chair and roll in the floor in a desperate attempt not to pee myself. My coworkers think I am deranged... thanks!
Molly
Posted by: Molly at Jul 19, 2007 3:07:49 PM
very humerous blog segment
Posted by: tim at Jul 19, 2007 3:23:24 PM
With regard to the secrecy issue and Accidental Poet's post above:
My best friend and her partner C. just had a baby via donor sperm. That's not the secret. The secret is that C.'s sister had disowned her years ago because she was a lesbian. The sister has two kids, the elder of whom is about 12. She had never told her children they had more than two aunts—the third aunt just didn't exist for them. She finally got over herself and resumed contact with C. When she told her 12-year-old about that extra aunt he'd never heard of, he was pissed. His own mother had lied to him about something important for his whole life. "Oh, I suppose next you're going to tell me you have a brother, too?" He was angry and waiting for the next lie to reveal itself. Huge trust issues there now.
Honesty is generally a good thing.
Posted by: Orange at Jul 19, 2007 3:34:53 PM
I was hesitant to read the article because I had really disliked her book -- wrote a post about it a couple months ago .... it irritated me like sand in the bed.
Anyway. I thought the article was good.
I conceived one of my kids via donor insemination: he knows, he's always known -- he kind of had to, as I'm a single mother by choice. I hope to have more kids, and they'll know, no matter what path they take to get here.
Posted by: Beth at Jul 19, 2007 3:49:47 PM
Sheilah, I wonder if this is what the people on the MVED mailing group did not like (as quoted by Karen above):
'At one point, in talking about her failed donor cycle, Orenstein said something like, "even his gametes couldn't be unfaithful to me."'
Uck! She should really know better than that. I too liked her article though.
Posted by: JMW at Jul 19, 2007 5:11:18 PM
With regard to the NPR "even his gametes couldn't be unfaithful to me" thing, what she actually said was "I like to think even his gametes couldn't be unfaithful to me" and her tone, to my ear at least, was firmly tongue-in-cheek. I understand that the comment, particularly out of context, seems offensive, but I think Orenstein is using humor to deal with the pain of a failed cycle. That's a pretty common coping device -- one of my favorites, certainly -- so even though I rolled my eyes when I heard her say that, I think we should cut her some slack.
Posted by: kelly at Jul 19, 2007 6:18:37 PM
I heard about the article after hearing the Fresh Air interview- which was aired the day after a fascinating discussion on World Have Your Say- a BBC program aired on my local NPR, about Corinne Maier's book "Forty Reasons Not to Have Children"- a bestseller in France. Anyhoo- the show asked folks if they thought a woman who chooses not to have children is selfish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2007/07/40_reasons_not_to_have_childre.html
I second Jenny's inquiry about not addressing queer families and donor gametes. It seems we have a wealth of experience and a unique perspective on the matter, not to mention a generation of offspring with opinions of their own. *sigh*
And the whole "Even his gametes couldn't be unfaithful to me" line- it wasn't a serious comment at all. She was being funny. And I thought it was funny :)
I appreciated her candor about her own ambivalence about parenting. Imagine the pressure we could take off one another by honestly admitting that sometimes being a parent sucks :)
Posted by: erin at Jul 19, 2007 6:23:29 PM
I agree that gays and lesbians have a lot of experience with donor gametes, but it seems to me that the issues Peggy Orenstein was addressing -- when do you turn to that, to tell or not to tell the child -- aren't really up for debate with gay and lesbian couples in the same way that they are for straight couples.
Posted by: Slim at Jul 20, 2007 7:16:34 AM
You invented the internet?
I KNEW IT!!
Posted by: Paula at Jul 20, 2007 9:27:53 AM
When we started down our infertility road, although short, I had linked to your blog and started reading. Now, 5 months after the birth of my 32.4 week twins, I can't peel myself away. I've spent the last 2 days reading the last 2 (more) years. I am struggling myself with the worries that another prengancy might bring, infertility-wise, pregnancy that might kill me wise, preemie-wise. Anyway, I have nothing but well-wishes for you as you continue down the path to whatever is what your heart and soul decide.
Posted by: Meghan at Jul 20, 2007 10:37:54 AM
As a parent of twins who don't look anything alike, and whose personalities couldn't be any more different, I can tell you that the appearance thing is a huge deal, even though we haven't used donor gametes of any kind. People are always commenting on how different they look, from my husband or me or each other, and questioning us about where they got this trait or that (where does that curly hair come from? or the difference in complexion etc). They seriously could have totally different parents and look more alike, which sometimes, since they were conceived by IVF, makes me very worried that maybe there was a lab mix up. If I had used donor gametes, I would have to explain they traits they have in a totally different fashion than I do now. All I can say is, if you choose your donor carefully, your future kids will probably look more like you than mine do, but that no matter what, honesty will probably be the best policy.
Posted by: Chickenpig at Jul 20, 2007 11:25:19 AM
I too felt this was the first press article i've read that got it. Her comments on the ambivalence issue (on the radio) hit home. How do you really know that you want this if you've never had it? You might think you know, and the insanity of all the treatments makes you more and more desperate to accomplish it...
the thought of being outed by a poster in the school hallway is frightening, however... perhaps by the time that happens, the loss i feel now will be so much more remote, and it wont matter...
Yes, it would be good to hear more about the children of gay couples, who could give us more insight into the children's view. So what do they say?
As for picking your donor by their movies... Yikes! I started by picking the only donor in our pool who had a previous successful cycle, but recently switched to another because she had much better comments to the child, albeit is less of a sure thing. Instead of "learn a second language" and "I did it for the cash"(only mildly paraphrased!), she had truly wonderful comments that i wont fear sharing with my child(ren).
Posted by: lori at Jul 20, 2007 11:51:32 AM
I've seen the word biological used throughout these comments and in Orenstein's article to describe the genetic connection. It's always been my understanding that I actually am the biological mother of my donor egg conceived infants, but not the genetic mother. I'm pregnant and that's pretty darn biological. So I just read the definition of biological, and IMHO, donor egg conceptions put a whole new spin on the original meaning of biological child. Of course the donor has the genetic tie, but how can she be considered the biological mother? My biology is sustaining their development, and I will go through the physical process of labor and then nursing.
And I also cringed at the statement of Orenstein's husband's sperm not being unfaithful to his wife's eggs. Ouch. I think she's sincere in saying that she didn't want her natural pregnancy to overshadow the pain of years of infertility but that comment was humor best kept between her and her husband. It was painful to think of what my husband and another woman could make together that he and I could not. It was one of my biggest hurdles in making peace with a profound loss.
Posted by: cricket at Jul 20, 2007 7:27:27 PM
i was so impressed by her piece--and her interview with Terri Gross was great. She truly conveyed the feelings we all go through with infertility, IVF, medicated cycles, adoption, and all of the escalating levels of committment we'll go through in our quest to complete our families. As you said, unsensationalized--this really hit home.
Posted by: amanda at Jul 20, 2007 11:05:08 PM
Have no insight into your decisions, except they seem sane and balanced. Mostly wanted to tell you I saw Staying Alive IN THE THEATER when it came out. I was 12 I think, but still. I also, cannot look away from the horror/glory that is Grease 2. I don't care who knows it.
Posted by: emjaybee at Jul 20, 2007 11:40:02 PM
Thank you Julie. I have printed out the Orenstein article and sat my husband down to read it, along with various other DE info, in preparation for the End-of-All-Discussions discussion that we will have tomorrow about whether we stay as a biogenetically 'intact' family of three or attempt to have a second child with donor eggs. I totally get cricket's comment, and I find what Orenstein says about the term biogenetic, and separating out the two parts, very interesting.
And if anyone else has links to good, unsensational resources about DE, please add them to the comments - I may be going out on a limb here but I don't suppose Julie will mind :)
Posted by: alchemilla at Jul 21, 2007 5:03:31 AM
My husband and I both read the article. I thought it did a great service to those of us considering using DE.
I wish all of us going through the DE journey lots of luck.
Posted by: erin at Jul 21, 2007 10:20:56 AM
So it didn't bother you that pretty much all of the male partners represented in that article said (or were remembered by their wives as saying) things along the lines of "I don't want a child unless it's my OWN, so adoption is out?"
I thought the representation of people's reasons for wanting to use donor gametes in that article were awfully patriarchal/patrilineal/male egocentric.
Posted by: Shannon at Jul 21, 2007 11:07:56 PM
I think plenty of women feel that way, too, Shannon, and thus don't pursue adoption. Those women won't get interviewed in an article about donor eggs, though, because if they only want a child that's genetically descended from them, they're not going to choose donor eggs either.
Posted by: Orange at Jul 22, 2007 3:18:33 PM
...And here's an interesting take on Orenstein's article from a lesbian nonbiological mom.
Posted by: Orange at Jul 23, 2007 11:48:06 PM
I just can't get past the fact that Orenstein didn't go through with DE and as a "fluke" has a bio/genetic child. I felt duped after reading the article and listening to the NPR interview. It was like reading a travel guide to an exotic locale by someone who had done a lot of research but never actually got to visit the foreign land. Someone claiming to be an expert on Bungee Jumper but never actually took the plunge. Of course the issues surrounding DE are addressed in a thorough manner, but the whole thing lost cred with me since she never made it to this foreign land and never jumped.
I was a bit suprised that this didn't irk readers on this blog as much as it irked me. maybe i need to reread it.
Posted by: trixieb at Aug 4, 2007 6:45:34 AM
