Tag Archives: Plan

News

New study compares donor-conceived vs biologically-conceived children

3 Comments

The study is here. (H/T Dr. J from RuthBlog)

Dr. J writes:

The Institute for American Values has just published a new study, My Daddy’s Name is Donor, of how donor conceived persons are doing in comparison with those who were born and raised by their biological parents and in comparison with those who were adopted.

And she notes this comment from a gay man who thinks that the fact that he and his partner PLANNED their donor-conceived child, that they are therefore justified morally in doing so.

The gay man writes:

I’m a gay man who has had a child, with my partner of 8 years, through surrogacy and egg donation. The egg donor and surrogate will be known to our son.

One way that I explain to people our experience with the artificial reproduction process is that it is the opposite of being ‘knocked-up’. We were very involved in the planning and conception and the growth and birth of our child. Our child’s conception and birth was considered, thought about, planned for, dreamed about, fantasized about. He was most definitely wanted. He is loved and treasured.

We did not have sex to have our child. We did not have wedded, heterosexual, within marriage, we-want-to-have-a-child-sex. We did not have wedded, passionate, spur-of-the-moment at the wrong time of the month (or the wrong time of our life) sex. We did not have wedded, spur-of-the-moment, right time of the month sex. We did not have any of these types heterosexual sex as unmarried heterosexuals.

But so many children are born to heterosexual couples via each of these eight scenarios. So many. Many more, around the world are born in wider range of unloving scenarios.

And then one of the authors (Elizabeth Marquardt) of the new study responds by citing evidence.

I just want to note that one way of looking at the My Daddy’s Name is Donor study is as a study of three groups: The first completely one hundred percent wanted and intended — that is, the donor offspring. The other two groups made up of a lot of unintended pregnancies — that is, the adopted and those raised by their biological parents.

Which group is faring the worst? The 100 percent wanted, planned, intended group. The donor offspring, overall, even with controls, are twice as likely to have struggled with substance abuse and delinquency, and 1.5 times as likely to have struggled with depression, compared to those raised by their biological parents (and these differences are significant). The adopted generally fall in between except with regard to depression in which case they were higher than both the donor conceived and the raised-by-biological.

No one is saying, T, that “all” of those raised by biological parents are doing great. But when you look at these populations, measured by our study, you find that, contrary to today’s conventional wisdom, being wanted isn’t enough. What the child is born into — who the child is raised by — matters.

Some more stats from Maggie Gallagher.

Excerpt:

Forty-five percent of these young adults conceived by donor insemination agree, “The circumstances of my conception bother me.” Almost half report that they think about their donor conception a few times a week or more. Forty-five percent agree, “It bothers me that money was exchanged in order to conceive me.”

Nearly half of donor offspring (compared to about a fifth of adopted adults) agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” Similarly, 53 percent (compared to 29 percent of adoptees) agree, “It hurts when I hear other people talk about their genealogical background.”

This is not fair to children – it treats them like a commodity instead of as a gift from God to be treasured and nurtured.

News

Idaho and Virginia pass legislation to opt-out of Obamacare

1 Comment

First, Idaho. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via ECM)

Excerpt:

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

And then, Virginia. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via ECM)

Excerpt:

The Virginia General Assembly has given final approval to a bill that would make it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a measure intended to conflict with Democratic efforts to reform health care in Washington.

[…]Gov. Robert F. McDonnell said Wednesday that he intends to sign the legislation.

The measure had been virtually assured passage since five Democrats crossed party lines last month in the state Senate, which their party controls, and supported the proposal.

Proponents of the measure said the federal government should not force private citizens to enter into private contracts for insurance. The legislation, they said, was a way to send a message to Washington.

Idaho is a red state, but Virginia is purple. Interesting. It looks like people are not interested in paying for mandatory coverages for medical services that they will never use, like abortions, in-vitro fertilization or sex changes. I guess people do who want those services will have to pay the full price themselves, while the rest of us who don’t want those services will just buy what coverage we need, and spend the rest of our money on gas and groceries, instead.

Tom Coburn warns corrupt Democrats

Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., warning Democrats who vote for Obamacare in exchange for pork and bribes.

Suddenly, I feel proud to be a Republican. How about you?

News

New study confirms that men are losing their leadership role in relationships

12 Comments

This article from the UK Daily Mail scares me.

First, an anecdote:

One of my male friends is looking to move home, out of the city centre and into the suburbs. I asked where he fancied  –  north, south, east or west. He shrugged. ‘I have no say in it,’ he said. ‘It’s not my decision.’

I pointed out that choosing where to live is one of the biggest decisions we make. Plus, he’d be paying for at least half of it. Surely he had some say? He shook his head. ‘The wife decides.’

This same friend last year kowtowed to his then girlfriend’s desire for a massive wedding with more than 200 guests and costing more than £20,000, even though he admitted that his preference would have been for a much smaller and more intimate affair.

And another anecdote:

One of my friends, a stay-at-home mother to two young children, says she is absolutely ‘the decider’ in her marriage.

‘My husband earns the money and I decide how we spend it,’ she says. ‘I feed and dress us all. I decide where and when we go on holiday. I choose everything for the house and have just decided to get an extension.

‘I even buy my own birthday present from my husband and our children. Actually, I quite often feel as if I have three children, not two. But that’s the way it is.’

She went on: ‘If I had to consult and strive for equality in every decision, we’d never get anything done. It sounds very old-fashioned, but basically my husband is the provider  –  in financial terms  –  and I am in charge of running the show.

‘Some people would no doubt say my husband’s “under the thumb” or that I “wear the trousers”. Although I hate the thought, it’s probably true.’

Then the research:

Studies appear to confirm that women are increasingly the dominant decision-making force in relationships.

A recent report found that by 2020 women will be driving the world economy and will have the final say in the majority of financial decisions in Britain’s homes.

Another study found that women make 80 per cent of all purchasing decisions, and 94 per cent of home furnishing purchases.

The study also found that in nearly half of all relationships men have no share in decision-making in the following four areas: household finances, big home purchases, the location of their homes, shared weekend activities and television viewing.

Does that sound like a good deal for men?

Related posts