I read Julie's post this morning and thought. Then did some coding and thought some more.

I can't come down to why I think it is not a great idea. But I am not happy with it.

I guess there is this pesky issue of biological information. Eventually, the child will need to know SOMETHING of their medical history.

But is this any different than a closed adoption?

I wonder....

And even with homestudies, I am sure some seedy people get past and can adopt. So, I am not sure that argument holds much weight.

But yes, deep down, it bothers me. And I cannot logically understand why. So I haven't posted yet on Julie's blog

You can't always produce a bio parent, right? Sometimes, you have a child, adopted, as a child, baby or embryo, who is, simply, bereft of biological ties. You just have to work the best you can with that, right?

If the only acceptable family who become parents---outside of simply reproducing on their own---is to be screened and have ties with the bio family, where does that leave all the rest of the adoptions?

I also think that, in truth, it IS about me, the IF parent, or the adoptive parent. We are pieces of the puzzle. I think (hope?) you mean that it isn't ALL about us versus it isn't about us at all.

I'm not sure who is claiming entitlement. I don't see how claiming it's fair enough to get to try to become parents means I think (or this Jennalee person) thinks I have the *right* to be a parent.

IF patients might pursue this simply because it is more affordable than other options. You hate for money to be the issue but sometimes, it is.

These women (donors and recipients) have to go through stimulation and retrieval. That's not easy. None of any of this is easy, actually. By golly, after going through it, it costs a lot, emotionally, physically and spiritually. You must REALLY want to be parents. You have to be really motivated.

It doesn't make you good, per se. Or worthy.

I agree.

There never are any guarantees though, either about becoming parents, or being good ones.

In the end, sometimes, it is complicated. And by this point, when you pursue this, you’re already long and far away from ideal.

What is your proposed solution?

OOOPS! part of my comment was cut. Sorry.

The beginning is:

I agree we have to consider a child who will have a natural desire to know his/her origins. Or the possible need to know for medical reasons. Further, we have to respect the bio parent position. Ideally, every person who becomes a parent is “worthy” and can create the best world possible for their children. And if, once parents, they aren’t able to adequately care for their children as per legal requirements, there are processes (flawed though they might be at times) that step in to protect the children.

However.

It’s not always 100% within our control.

I agree 100% about anonymity. I think all donors should be ID release and I think there should be mandatory reporting of offspring born from gamete donation. I have heard that many babies born from a single sperm donor aren't reported to the sperm bank so that in fact, if the bank has a rule that only 20 kids can be born from one donor, for example, there's no way to really keep track.
What a mess.
And no, you can't always produce a bio connection. I can't produce a father for my daughter--maybe someday her mother can do it. But that situation should not be planned and accepted in advance.

Spacemom--Yes, this is different from a closed adoption. At least in closed adoptions, there's a court record somewhere, and a judge can be persuaded (or required by law) to release that information to an adult adoptee. As for homestudies--yes, some seedy people do get past and adopt, but at least you've got some vetting. Some.

Julie--The difference here is that an assembly-line anonymous donation is deciding--beforehand--that the child will never know. And it's pretty damned easy to keep that a secret from friends and family; after all, mom is pregnant, eh? And it's mighty damned easy to conceal from the child, as well. I'm also not talking the parents raising the child having bio ties with the donors...? Did I misunderstand that? About the "it's not about you"...well. Um. My objections *aren't* about the IF folks looking for children. My objections are that the children who result have been commodified and no-one has said word one about them. There's this idea of children, a dream, but it was rare in my experience of the IF world for the people to think of the children resulting as real, live, adult human beings of their own who might feel very differently. It may be the whole future to the IF folk, but it's the offsprings whole existence, background, history. Ah, well, like I've said before, I drank the Kool-Aid long ago...

Hi, Lilysea! What you said: "that situation should not planned and accepted in advance". Not just "accepted", but eagerly sought after. There was a certain amount of oh-those-horrible-birthparents in the quotes from Ryan that really rubbed me the wrong way.

Have you seen the website? You'll be even more mortified. Give a look at the page she has her info for potential birthmoms on. She literally talks about trampling on birthfathers rights like she's talking about a Sunday picnic.

I think I'll do a post on this.

Oh, and WTF are her credentials anyway???

Hmm well the irony is that when we pursued adoption we selected a form of open adoption. We felt that it was healthiest to have the opportunity for contact among the Aparents, Bparents, and child. We decided this after much research and talking to adult adoptees and bio parents, as well as adoptive parents. We did grow to understand---and it is something that evolves with much contact versus innate understanding IMO---that there are complex POVs to consider.

We also believe in honesty with our children. Everyone asked, "Will you tell Patience how she came to be? Will you huh huh huh?" as if they had any right to know...okay bitterness aside LOL they asked because they needed to know what to say, or not. "Yes," we said, "We'll tell the truth, in age-appropriate ways."

When we were pondering what we would do with leftover embryos, if we had any, we would *never,* we knew, just hand them over and say "give them to whoever for whatever." We knew if we adopted them out, we'd want to be sure it was a good family in case a child resulted. We'd want to know the people because to us, a bio tie is a real tie. We did not feel capable of complete abandonment. I understand for some, this is best for them, but it was not for us. As it happened, it was moot so we never had to figure out what to really do.

So for me, the entire idea of the "donate and run" and "buy an embryo with nothing more beyond that" is unsettling. *I* couldn't do it. I couldn't believe it would be good ethics or morals to do it to a child.

So I'm in essence, agreeing with your opinion.

I think my objection lies in some of the principles you use to bolster that opinion, many of which were things I had to fight against when dealing with our pursuit to bring a child into our family.

Many of those same principles were things I felt ended up being prejudice against our "above and beyond" attempts to become a family of more than just us two. They were things hurtled at us to explain why people thought we were "being un-natural."

I admit it. My *dream* of a child was far from reality. How I'd be as a parent, how things would be, how I'd feel...it was all imagined because I'd never had the experience, and although I'd seen it, I still had *my* vision.

So I'm one of those people, I suppose. Since I was imagining it, the "wild card" bit of it was beyond my ken. It all came from my head, so it was all my projection. Yeah, even with my kids now, I still am not real sure how they'll be as a grown-up or what they'll think and feel then. I guess I'll find out.

Maybe I'm not as evolved or self-actualized as other grown-ups. What can I say. Being a parent and having a child was a concept to me before it was a reality. Once it was a reality, it was a (sometimes rude) awakening (still is).

In long (ha ha sorry to wax on and on here), I feel the *process* has been commodified, and in a way that I personally do not feel comfortable with, but I do not feel solid taking the next leap to agree that because the process is commodified therefore the children are. I don't see the logical path to that conclucsion, it's more of a leap IMO.

So what I'm trying to say is that although I know my preferences...I'm claiming them as my preferences versus The Right Way.

This woman sounds like she's doing a piss poor (okay let's not mince words...unethical) job of it, but that doesn't mean I'd be willing, based on this initial execution of the concept, to outlaw the concept entirely.

MomEtc...
Good points.. I am thinking still. This is why my thoughts are not coherent...

(Omom- can you forward this to MomEtc)?

Ethics aside, I don't see how she's going to make any money. There's an organization that helps connect unneeded (spare) frozen embryos with infertile couples. The purpose is to save the embryos. People need not pay for embryos.

And women do not just "donate" eggs for fun. They do it for someone they know who is desperate for a child, OR for the high dollars they get. So I don't see this business model working.