CONTINUED

What Maggie was trying to do was simply point out that it’s not as simple as has been made out in the glowing documentaries we see on the television. Raising DC children is fraught and only by complete openness and contact with natural parents can the dangers be minimised. She was upset that too many parents, both gay and straight, seem to be ignoring this imperative, and blithely steaming ahead with anonymous gametes without seeing the whole picture. People would be wise to listen to her carefully and not become defensive, let alone abusive.

Another point that is worth mentioning is that as the business of obtaining children becomes more commercial, whether though inter-country adoption or surrogacy or gamete sale, it is just another case of the poor being exploited for the benefit of the rich. Apart from a few cases of surrogate siblings, it usually poor women who give up their children to others and poor women who become surrogates for rich ones and poor women who donate their eggs for rich ones to have babies, so there is an underlying social justice issue here too.

ENDS

Don't worry Ian (and Maggie), with the advent of personal genome sequencing and genomic medicine almost upon us, most of these kids will know exactly what their 'genetic inheritance' is.

I can almost guarantee that many won't be happy anyway if we keep talking about their existence and entry into this world as somehow 'unnatural'.

Ian,

Have you any figures to back up what you are saying? I have 5 friends that were adopted, and while all of them wondered about their biological parents, none of them would have gone out of their way to find them. One in particular had the opportunity a few years ago and declined.

I know of a single mother that used a donor with the particular intent of the father having a small role. The inconsistent involvement with gaps of sometimes a year, have done more damage than if he had never been known.

I am a firm believer in family, but one's family is simply those that love and care for you. Recent studies have shown DC children to be as well balanced as those in nuclear families, so while some people have angst over the issue, it is a tiny minority.

As for the choices of the parents, none would resort to DC if they had a partner that could do the job. Saying that their only option is to remain childless is cruel and heartless, and I suspect more than a little homophobic and self righteous.

Maggie Millar has targeted a real and difficult problem. And I agree with much of the reasoning around donor-conceived children. However, there is a level of splenetic discourse here that goes beyond criticism. There are other options - legal *and* humane options - apart from donor-conceived children. Some heterosexual, married infertile couples don't think it is their 'right' to adopt, to foster, to parent. They're very much aware that children are a gift (and a massive responsibility - that some don't take seriously enough!). And yet, if those couples have the opportunity to help one of the myriad children orphaned, given up for adoption, and in such dire circumstances that the home they would provide would be far better than no home at all, isn't that a superior outcome than the life that child has now and into the future? It's mutually beneficial. But there was no mention of legal adoption in the rant; there was no nuance. It's rather unfortunate, because Millar makes some very good points.

@Shadow Minister

Statistically, adoptees are over-represented in crime statistics, divorce courts, psychiatric institutions and social welfare interventions.

I'll try to get precise refs for you if you want.

Ian,

Given that adoptees are from mothers that cannot care for them, and a significant number of them are taken from parents with psychological or drug problems, it is entirely expected that they would be over represented in crime, and mental issues.

This does not apply to DC children. If you had statistics on DC children this would be relevant.