The Lie That Made Me(torontolife.com)
torontolife.com
The Lie That Made Me
https://torontolife.com/memoir/the-horrifying-truth-about-my-biological-father/
106 comments
If you're a certain kind of person who is either lonely or lost in life, it's a mission with a purpose whose reward may be a connection that makes you feel less alone. Readinging between the lines of this article, it sounds like this author may be a bit of both.
Agreed, it seems odd to have a strong emotional reaction to the discovery that your father is Donor #3855 instead of Donor #2291.
On the other hand, inheriting celiac is pretty awful.
On the other hand, inheriting celiac is pretty awful.
> I'm not sure I understand the insistence on figuring out [...] who exactly your biological father is.
The importance of this is different for everyone in this situation and weighs on everyone different. When if you looked into a mirror and did not know or understand where literally half of you came from? Would you know what some sort of answer? If you grew up not fitting in with your family, it is only natural to want to know more lest you repress it and experience an identity crisis.
The importance of this is different for everyone in this situation and weighs on everyone different. When if you looked into a mirror and did not know or understand where literally half of you came from? Would you know what some sort of answer? If you grew up not fitting in with your family, it is only natural to want to know more lest you repress it and experience an identity crisis.
Psychological reasons aside, because this information can be medically relevant.
For example the article mentions:
> Rebecca had also recently developed celiac disease, a hereditary condition that didn’t run in either of her parents’ families.
For example the article mentions:
> Rebecca had also recently developed celiac disease, a hereditary condition that didn’t run in either of her parents’ families.
This is so incredibly sad. At this point in my life, I empathize with the involuntary donor quite a bit. While the author might not understand his position not wanting her to have any contact with him or his family, I certainly do.
It's clear this doctor has a pattern of deceptive behavior beyond merely his practice. It's also clear that if one doctor does it, someone else has or will. I wonder how the medical board can better filter out chronic deceivers or at least better regulate it.
It's clear this doctor has a pattern of deceptive behavior beyond merely his practice. It's also clear that if one doctor does it, someone else has or will. I wonder how the medical board can better filter out chronic deceivers or at least better regulate it.
Can you explain that in more detail? Because I don't understand it at all.
If somehow it turned out I have other children, I'd love to know how they're doing and if they're similar to me or my kid. A personal data point on the nature vs nurture debate!
I can understand not wanting additional financial responsibilities - but that can't be the worry here, the author is in her 30s.
If somehow it turned out I have other children, I'd love to know how they're doing and if they're similar to me or my kid. A personal data point on the nature vs nurture debate!
I can understand not wanting additional financial responsibilities - but that can't be the worry here, the author is in her 30s.
I think people with families can be incredibly protective of it and anything that may create emotional upheaval in it. If I were in his situation, I'd be thinking more about how this might impact my wife or children. Depending on upbringing and religion, I can see it being immensely traumatic for the rest of the family. I'd care more about protecting that stability than satisfying my or my donor child's curiosity. You can say that family would be wrong, but sometimes being right isn't the most important thing in a marriage or in parenting.
Imagine this story if it didn't happen through artificial insemination but through, say, an ex-girlfriend who didn't reveal the pregnancy until the child was in adulthood. That literally happened to a friend of mine. While the father had no control over what happened, it was immensely disruptive to his family. To them, it was a lot like discovering he had a second family...cue the thoughts on if you'll be loved less, etc. While you can say there's a world of difference between the two, the emotional journey for the family can end up looking very similar. Again, it isn't fair, but anything emotionally charged like this isn't.
I'm not saying it's necessarily what I'd do, but I understand.
Imagine this story if it didn't happen through artificial insemination but through, say, an ex-girlfriend who didn't reveal the pregnancy until the child was in adulthood. That literally happened to a friend of mine. While the father had no control over what happened, it was immensely disruptive to his family. To them, it was a lot like discovering he had a second family...cue the thoughts on if you'll be loved less, etc. While you can say there's a world of difference between the two, the emotional journey for the family can end up looking very similar. Again, it isn't fair, but anything emotionally charged like this isn't.
I'm not saying it's necessarily what I'd do, but I understand.
I'm still not grokking the trauma. It's a cliche, but impregnating someone doesn't make you a parent, in the sense that's relevant to your comment. It's investing the time, attention, emotional and financial resources that grants one that status.
If I learned that my dad was not actually traveling on business but instead tending to his alternate family, that would be sad. If I learned that he had biological offspring that he had no material (otherwise) connection with/to, I'd simply shrug.
If I learned that my dad was not actually traveling on business but instead tending to his alternate family, that would be sad. If I learned that he had biological offspring that he had no material (otherwise) connection with/to, I'd simply shrug.
If "impregnating someone doesn't make you a parent" then why does the author even want contact with her biological father? There is zero rational reason for them to have contact or a relationship except that she clearly does want one. I don't blame him for not wanting a random new family member.
It's perfectly rational to want to make contact with the person you inherited half your DNA from. I don't get from the article that the author was necessarily seeking a long-term, or otherwise deep relationship with their biological father.
I think it's perfectly understandable to want to make contact with him, but not necessarily rational.
If she doesn't want a relationship with him, why is she trying to make contact? (He's already given her medical info.) It's rather clear she does expect a relationship of some sort.
If she doesn't want a relationship with him, why is she trying to make contact? (He's already given her medical info.) It's rather clear she does expect a relationship of some sort.
Either scenario is plausible. She may want nothing more than to spend no more than 2 hours over coffee learning about him. Or, she may want to kindle a long-term relationship. The author doesn't give us enough details to know one way or the other.
Dude's seed was stolen, he wasn't a donor, he paid to have it stored for future use. When he tried to use what was left it failed. So I cut the guy a break on this, he never consented to either sex nor was he a donor. I'd like to think I'd want to speak to her, but I haven't gone through any of that process.
I think the failure to grok stems from you imagining yourself in this position and thinking about how you'd feel instead of imagining other kinds of people and how they'd feel.
If it helps, women tend to think about parenthood differently by nature...probably because their involvement in the act includes giving birth. A woman would likely find it more difficult to maintain that "sperm donor" separation. If the wife of the man is that kind of person, they might find it very hard to imagine the man maintaining separation (much the way you find it hard to imagine not maintaining it).
Even meeting once is spending time, attention, and emotional resources. And for the family, even that little bit can be the seed of questions of whether one meeting means there will be more. If I were in the man's position, it wouldn't be worth distress I'd cause. Better to have none than one.
However, we're getting into increasingly hypothetical territory. We're doing a lot to assume emotions and motivations on people and assessing their validity. Valid or not, I do see a world where I'd make the same choice this man made, and I wish them the best for it.
If it helps, women tend to think about parenthood differently by nature...probably because their involvement in the act includes giving birth. A woman would likely find it more difficult to maintain that "sperm donor" separation. If the wife of the man is that kind of person, they might find it very hard to imagine the man maintaining separation (much the way you find it hard to imagine not maintaining it).
Even meeting once is spending time, attention, and emotional resources. And for the family, even that little bit can be the seed of questions of whether one meeting means there will be more. If I were in the man's position, it wouldn't be worth distress I'd cause. Better to have none than one.
However, we're getting into increasingly hypothetical territory. We're doing a lot to assume emotions and motivations on people and assessing their validity. Valid or not, I do see a world where I'd make the same choice this man made, and I wish them the best for it.
Very few emotional responses are rational, and I'd hardly call any sort of reaction to this universal.
in a more precarious manner, our legal systems were not well updated to deal with IVF. Some states do not explicitly protect donors from being sued for child support. And even worse if the child was actually conceived.
in a more precarious manner, our legal systems were not well updated to deal with IVF. Some states do not explicitly protect donors from being sued for child support. And even worse if the child was actually conceived.
If a rape victim has an offspring and wants nothing to with it, I’d say it’s a very understandable position.
Some people don't want to accept that the story of their life is not what they think it is
Others, like me, just don't care.
I'm come with a feature of skipping all the other stages, straight from news to acceptance. Let other people have denial, bargain, anger, etc.
I'm more like "huh, how about that, humans have a track record of doing things like that or being involved in things like that"
If I found out I had a different parent, or a different sibling, I've already acknowledged the possibility of this. It happens. Now, we've all even read this article, now we all know "it happens". Meh. Moving on. Nice parlor talk if I want to shake up a conversation.
I'm come with a feature of skipping all the other stages, straight from news to acceptance. Let other people have denial, bargain, anger, etc.
I'm more like "huh, how about that, humans have a track record of doing things like that or being involved in things like that"
If I found out I had a different parent, or a different sibling, I've already acknowledged the possibility of this. It happens. Now, we've all even read this article, now we all know "it happens". Meh. Moving on. Nice parlor talk if I want to shake up a conversation.
I think you and others implied a value judgement that I didn't make. I think some people are searching for a Truth that will make it all make sense, and others have found a truth that works well enough for them, and they don't want to shake it up. I've been on both sides of the coin myself.
Yeah, I completely sympathize with the donor. He didn't want this child and should not be forced to add another family member because the author (selfishly) wants contact with her father.
The author is also clearly in denial. If she "didn’t care about finding [her] biological father" she wouldn't have put tremendous effort into it (including writing this article).
The author is also clearly in denial. If she "didn’t care about finding [her] biological father" she wouldn't have put tremendous effort into it (including writing this article).
I’m assuming you had the privilege of knowing your biological family, in which case it can be difficult to fully understand one’s motivation behind attempting to locate them.
“Anonymous” sperm and egg donors that are able to be found and contacted at least they knew they what they were signing up for in that 3rd parties would be using their gametes to have their own children. In this case, someone who had banked sperm for their use in the future only had it instead used in this situation.
This article brings attention to the dismal state of the fertility industry that has no professional accountability despite providing services to create new life. It is rather insensitive to trivialize what this person is feeling by calling her selfish for wanting to know who her father is as if it’s some luxury and lacking in empathy to dismiss these feelings by simply stating she is in denial. In addition to the trauma caused by learning that she was donor conceived, learning that clinic royally fucked up has robbed her of the opportunity to establish contact with her biological family due to the situation the clinic put her in.
“Anonymous” sperm and egg donors that are able to be found and contacted at least they knew they what they were signing up for in that 3rd parties would be using their gametes to have their own children. In this case, someone who had banked sperm for their use in the future only had it instead used in this situation.
This article brings attention to the dismal state of the fertility industry that has no professional accountability despite providing services to create new life. It is rather insensitive to trivialize what this person is feeling by calling her selfish for wanting to know who her father is as if it’s some luxury and lacking in empathy to dismiss these feelings by simply stating she is in denial. In addition to the trauma caused by learning that she was donor conceived, learning that clinic royally fucked up has robbed her of the opportunity to establish contact with her biological family due to the situation the clinic put her in.
At one of the military bases my dad was stationed at, he told me about a local woman who was going about this the old fashioned way. She was dark haired, and had 6 blonde boys. Every year when there was a new crew at the base, she'd show up at the local watering hole and scout out the tallest, blondest, smartest serviceman she could find, and you can guess the rest.
She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
To be fair that selection process is close enough to how it works for everyone in the world, minus not wanting anything to do with them hah
>To be fair that selection process is close enough to how it works for everyone in the world
As a short and not very attractive male, tell me about it :)
In truth, before modern civilization, only one single male reproduced for every 17 females. That's some inequality, which I think is on par with how the market looks like on Tinder for some guys.
As a short and not very attractive male, tell me about it :)
In truth, before modern civilization, only one single male reproduced for every 17 females. That's some inequality, which I think is on par with how the market looks like on Tinder for some guys.
Could you please citate your 1 male -17 female ratio? The gender ratio wiki page tells nothing about it.
> Every year when there was a new crew at the base, she'd show up at the local watering hole and scout out the tallest, blondest, smartest serviceman she could find, and you can guess the rest.
Did she give them an IQ test before inviting them to her place? How did she determine which one was the smartest? This reminds me of an article I read a while back about chinese women who were desperate to use US/EU sperm banks. But that may have been to use their children to get US/EU citizenship than raising blonde children.
> She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
That was decent of her. She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives. Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children or to the taxpayers though.
Did she give them an IQ test before inviting them to her place? How did she determine which one was the smartest? This reminds me of an article I read a while back about chinese women who were desperate to use US/EU sperm banks. But that may have been to use their children to get US/EU citizenship than raising blonde children.
> She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
That was decent of her. She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives. Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children or to the taxpayers though.
>How did she determine which one was the smartest?
Same how the Roman army did it when drafting. Having lively eyes and a witty sense of humor/banter, meant you were in the intelligent camp. Humans have had an evolutionary ability to quickly detect stupidity/intelligence in an individual. You can tell women are especially good at quickly probing/sensing this after a short conversation, if you've been dating a bit, which is why some men have gotten good at faking or compensating for it to up their odds (overconfidence, machoism, etc.).
Same how the Roman army did it when drafting. Having lively eyes and a witty sense of humor/banter, meant you were in the intelligent camp. Humans have had an evolutionary ability to quickly detect stupidity/intelligence in an individual. You can tell women are especially good at quickly probing/sensing this after a short conversation, if you've been dating a bit, which is why some men have gotten good at faking or compensating for it to up their odds (overconfidence, machoism, etc.).
> How did she determine which one was the smartest?
Beats me. But here's the Ann Landers test for intelligence based on having a conversation with the person:
1. smart people talk about ideas
2. average people talk about events
3. below average people gossip about other people
I know, I know, it's not perfect, but it's not a bad proxy. Yes, I indulge in gossip myself. No, I deliberately did not say "all" people for a reason.
> Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children
I have no idea if she was a good mother or not, but it's unfair to presume she wasn't.
> or to the taxpayers
Of course people take advantage of welfare.
Beats me. But here's the Ann Landers test for intelligence based on having a conversation with the person:
1. smart people talk about ideas
2. average people talk about events
3. below average people gossip about other people
I know, I know, it's not perfect, but it's not a bad proxy. Yes, I indulge in gossip myself. No, I deliberately did not say "all" people for a reason.
> Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children
I have no idea if she was a good mother or not, but it's unfair to presume she wasn't.
> or to the taxpayers
Of course people take advantage of welfare.
> But here's the Ann Landers
I already know about the list but I'm not one to take advice from someone like ann landers.
> I have no idea if she was a good mother or not, but it's unfair to presume she wasn't.
A mother who intentionally deprives her children of their fathers and intentionally brings her children into a life of poverty? I'd say she's the definition of a bad mother.
I already know about the list but I'm not one to take advice from someone like ann landers.
> I have no idea if she was a good mother or not, but it's unfair to presume she wasn't.
A mother who intentionally deprives her children of their fathers and intentionally brings her children into a life of poverty? I'd say she's the definition of a bad mother.
> advice
I bet if you consider it in the light of your personal experience with people, you'll find it has merit.
Welfare in America means free food, free housing, free medical care, and free education. With loving parents, that's what one needs. I agree that an absent father is deleterious, though.
I bet if you consider it in the light of your personal experience with people, you'll find it has merit.
Welfare in America means free food, free housing, free medical care, and free education. With loving parents, that's what one needs. I agree that an absent father is deleterious, though.
> I bet if you consider it in the light of your personal experience with people, you'll find it has merit.
In my experience, all people tend to gossip, like ann landers herself. If you disagree, try corporate america or a college campus.
> Welfare in America means free food, free housing, free medical care, and free education.
It means poverty. Section 8 housing and processed junk food mostly. It's better than homelessness and starvation, but far from ideal.
> With loving parents, that's what one needs.
Loving parents generally don't intentionally start their children's lives on welfare.
> I agree that an absent father is deleterious, though.
Certainly not something a good mother would intentionally do to their children.
Life's not perfect but some make it imperfect on purpose. You really have to wonder about people sometimes.
In my experience, all people tend to gossip, like ann landers herself. If you disagree, try corporate america or a college campus.
> Welfare in America means free food, free housing, free medical care, and free education.
It means poverty. Section 8 housing and processed junk food mostly. It's better than homelessness and starvation, but far from ideal.
> With loving parents, that's what one needs.
Loving parents generally don't intentionally start their children's lives on welfare.
> I agree that an absent father is deleterious, though.
Certainly not something a good mother would intentionally do to their children.
Life's not perfect but some make it imperfect on purpose. You really have to wonder about people sometimes.
> In my experience, all people tend to gossip
Here's an anecdote you might find relevant:
At Caltech, a good friend of mine lived in an apartment next to campus. He could only cook one dish, chicken wings, and was rightly famous for them. Once a month, he invited all comers for chicken wing night. His poor little apartment would get stuffed with students stuffing themselves.
Except for one. A middle-aged man would come in, get some wings, and just sit quietly in a corner. After seeing this a few times, I went over to ask him who he was, and why he was here. After all, he must be bored stiff listening to our prattle.
He said he was the apartment manager, and far from bored, he was fascinated to just sit and listen to the conversations. He said he'd never heard anyone talk like that before, nor had he heard anyone talk about the topics we did.
And no, the conversations were not about football, drinking, or sex.
> far from ideal
You've changed the goal posts from "what one needs" to "ideal".
Here's an anecdote you might find relevant:
At Caltech, a good friend of mine lived in an apartment next to campus. He could only cook one dish, chicken wings, and was rightly famous for them. Once a month, he invited all comers for chicken wing night. His poor little apartment would get stuffed with students stuffing themselves.
Except for one. A middle-aged man would come in, get some wings, and just sit quietly in a corner. After seeing this a few times, I went over to ask him who he was, and why he was here. After all, he must be bored stiff listening to our prattle.
He said he was the apartment manager, and far from bored, he was fascinated to just sit and listen to the conversations. He said he'd never heard anyone talk like that before, nor had he heard anyone talk about the topics we did.
And no, the conversations were not about football, drinking, or sex.
> far from ideal
You've changed the goal posts from "what one needs" to "ideal".
> She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives.
If the men had families, then they the men would be the ones ruining their lives. Seems like they escaped accountability for infidelity and left the costs to the tax payers.
If the men had families, then they the men would be the ones ruining their lives. Seems like they escaped accountability for infidelity and left the costs to the tax payers.
Apocryphal and dubious. Likely a myth to prop up the collective confidence in being breeding stock.
I have no proof, other than my dad wasn't known for telling tall tales. He related the story because it was both unusual and amusing.
You can believe whatever you like.
You can believe whatever you like.
was this army base located in Germany?
In 2020 I found out (through 23andme) that I had a half brother and another biological father. It was an extremely surreal experience. I can understand where the author is coming from for sure.
It did give me a completely different perspective on things. My bio-dad apparently had an awful life as an alcoholic, deep in constant poverty. He had a troubled relationship with my half-siblings and in general it sounds like I missed a bullet lol
It made me appreciate my father a lot more. We had a lot of issues, and he was pretty neglectful… but it could have been much worse! I’m much nicer to him these days ;P
It did give me a completely different perspective on things. My bio-dad apparently had an awful life as an alcoholic, deep in constant poverty. He had a troubled relationship with my half-siblings and in general it sounds like I missed a bullet lol
It made me appreciate my father a lot more. We had a lot of issues, and he was pretty neglectful… but it could have been much worse! I’m much nicer to him these days ;P
23andMe and similar services, though creepy to a degree to have your genetic information linked and profiled, have spawned a minor industry of social and familial alignment. Half-siblings and half-aunts/uncles are being found to be more common than people realized.
The convergence of technology and society is fascinating. This was an interested read on the mispractice of a fertility doctor.
The convergence of technology and society is fascinating. This was an interested read on the mispractice of a fertility doctor.
I'm honestly a little worried about the social fracturing that could happen as genetic and paternity testing get increasingly cheap and ubiquitous.
My intuition is that infidelity and paternity fraud is wildly more common than anyone wants to believe, and old social orders will break down as it becomes impossible to ignore and trivial for even light suspicions to be validated.
I have to believe it's good in the long run, because I think any order built on the foundation of deception is inherently fragile and ultimately doomed. There's a stronger order on the other side, but potential chaos through the transition.
My intuition is that infidelity and paternity fraud is wildly more common than anyone wants to believe, and old social orders will break down as it becomes impossible to ignore and trivial for even light suspicions to be validated.
I have to believe it's good in the long run, because I think any order built on the foundation of deception is inherently fragile and ultimately doomed. There's a stronger order on the other side, but potential chaos through the transition.
There was a study that showed that cuckoldry was pretty rare, the rate was around 1-2%[0]:
"Reading the internet, or even perusing the scientific literature, you'd get the idea that people are constantly cheating on their spouses. Indeed, scientists have estimated that anywhere from 10-30 percent of men are unknowingly raising children who are not their own. This situation is referred to as cuckoldry, or scientifically as "extra-pair paternity." Now, however, it appears that our estimates of cuckoldry rates were way off.
A new survey published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution sums up a number of recent studies that show the actual rate of cuckolds in the general population, based on genetic testing and ancestor research, is 1-2 percent. This challenges evolutionary psychologists who have suggested that human women "routinely ‘shop around’ for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulation to obtain genetic benefits." This idea came in part from studying socially monogamous songbirds, which mate for life but have roughly 1 in 10 babies as a result of "extra pair" matings."
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/cuckoldry-is-incredi...
"Reading the internet, or even perusing the scientific literature, you'd get the idea that people are constantly cheating on their spouses. Indeed, scientists have estimated that anywhere from 10-30 percent of men are unknowingly raising children who are not their own. This situation is referred to as cuckoldry, or scientifically as "extra-pair paternity." Now, however, it appears that our estimates of cuckoldry rates were way off.
A new survey published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution sums up a number of recent studies that show the actual rate of cuckolds in the general population, based on genetic testing and ancestor research, is 1-2 percent. This challenges evolutionary psychologists who have suggested that human women "routinely ‘shop around’ for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulation to obtain genetic benefits." This idea came in part from studying socially monogamous songbirds, which mate for life but have roughly 1 in 10 babies as a result of "extra pair" matings."
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/cuckoldry-is-incredi...
I'd love for this to be true, but it does conflict with various state policy decisions on the matter that seem to indicate at least a belief in the opposite. France's policy is particularly striking, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_paternity_testing#France
It is possible that state institutions make these policies based exactly on my assumption above, which seems like it could be incorrect. Or perhaps even 1-2% is still enough to cause significant social cost if easily exposed.
It is possible that state institutions make these policies based exactly on my assumption above, which seems like it could be incorrect. Or perhaps even 1-2% is still enough to cause significant social cost if easily exposed.
France is incredibly regressive and conservative when it comes to anything related to genetics. For example, for people doing IVF, it's not allowed to test the embryos for viability. The argument is that such testing is too close to eugenics, so instead women doing IVF cannot get any guarantees that the embryos are viable and it makes the procedure harder.
Doing a DNA test for yourself is also illegal...
Surrogacy is also not legal in France because “Any agreement, even if it does not provide for remuneration, whereby a woman agrees to conceive, bear and give birth to a child and then renounce it, is contrary to public order, the inviolability of the human body and the personal status of a natural person.”
So I wouldn't put much stoke into the policies of France on this matter
Doing a DNA test for yourself is also illegal...
Surrogacy is also not legal in France because “Any agreement, even if it does not provide for remuneration, whereby a woman agrees to conceive, bear and give birth to a child and then renounce it, is contrary to public order, the inviolability of the human body and the personal status of a natural person.”
So I wouldn't put much stoke into the policies of France on this matter
Maybe they are not incredibly regressive and conservative. Maybe they are different. You may not agree with their position but it is very imperialistic to suppose that any custom or law which is not exactly as it is in America must be considered backwards.
For the record, I'm French not American, voting for politicians to change those laws is one of my many deciding factors when choosing which politicians to vote for and I have a sister who had to do IVF so my close family was directly impacted by those nonsensical laws. My mum and her sister also broke the law by ordering two DNA test to confirm a long standing theory that my mum's father was not her biological father (her non-biological father had never hugged her and was always much colder towards her than towards her sister so having a confirmation of that was a relief for my mum)
Anyway, I do hope that I'm not being imperialistic when I criticize laws of my own country.
Anyway, I do hope that I'm not being imperialistic when I criticize laws of my own country.
Surrogacy is perhaps not the best example of French conservatism.
Curiously, only the USA and formerly Soviet countries permit paid surrogacy, and even altruistic surrogacy is illegal in much of the EU, including Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy.
Curiously, only the USA and formerly Soviet countries permit paid surrogacy, and even altruistic surrogacy is illegal in much of the EU, including Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy.
True, the main reason I talked about it is because
a) it's also part of the same discourse related to bioethics, the legal reasoning in France has the same component as the legal reasoning around euthanasia, paternity testing and dna test in that it doesn't recognize the rights of people to dispose of their own body.
b) When my sister was trying to do IVF and didn't get results for years, they were investigating the possibility of doing surrogacy abroad
c) I voted for Macron, among many reasons, because he was more open minded about surrogacy than his opponents.
I can see an argument against paid surrogacy but making altruistic surrogacy illegal is something I disagree vehemently.
But then again, I'm also very much in disagreement about the French legislation against prostitution (interestingly most organizations of sex workers or organizations that are implicated in helping sex workers are also against the law there too)
a) it's also part of the same discourse related to bioethics, the legal reasoning in France has the same component as the legal reasoning around euthanasia, paternity testing and dna test in that it doesn't recognize the rights of people to dispose of their own body.
b) When my sister was trying to do IVF and didn't get results for years, they were investigating the possibility of doing surrogacy abroad
c) I voted for Macron, among many reasons, because he was more open minded about surrogacy than his opponents.
I can see an argument against paid surrogacy but making altruistic surrogacy illegal is something I disagree vehemently.
But then again, I'm also very much in disagreement about the French legislation against prostitution (interestingly most organizations of sex workers or organizations that are implicated in helping sex workers are also against the law there too)
I don't see the conflict. Whether you're looking at 70M population or 10-15M kids, 1-2% of that is a lot of people.
In France, when you get married or have a kid you get a family book and it is the official record of your family. If you don't put a kid in, they don't have the same rights and vice versa. Really leans into the "family is a social construct" angle
Even so, 1-2% of 1 billion people is 10 million people...
It could be that modern birth control has reduced the rate of extra-pair paternity, as sexual impulses have (partially) decoupled from procreation.
From the above article...
> Scientists were so unwilling to believe that human women were different from songbirds that some suggested the discrepancy between expected and actual rates of cuckoldry was a recent development caused by birth control.
It would be quite interesting to do a study on modern social groups where birth control isn't yet ubiquitous. It could be fairly easy to do this kind of study covertly and anonymize the source so as to not risk throwing it into disarray if the results come back with high rates of cuckoldery.
> Scientists were so unwilling to believe that human women were different from songbirds that some suggested the discrepancy between expected and actual rates of cuckoldry was a recent development caused by birth control.
It would be quite interesting to do a study on modern social groups where birth control isn't yet ubiquitous. It could be fairly easy to do this kind of study covertly and anonymize the source so as to not risk throwing it into disarray if the results come back with high rates of cuckoldery.
> It could be fairly easy to do this kind of study covertly and anonymize the source so as to not risk throwing it into disarray if the results come back with high rates of cuckoldery.
Are you sure? A covert study seems likely unethical, and attempts at anonymization tend to show it's much harder than people think.
Are you sure? A covert study seems likely unethical, and attempts at anonymization tend to show it's much harder than people think.
Considering nobody ever considers it, 1-2% is huge! 1 in every 50-100 families. How many people from different families do you know?
Even if your family isn't one of affected, I'd bet you know several people from affected families.
Even if your family isn't one of affected, I'd bet you know several people from affected families.
There are about 120 million households in the US. Lets assume that approximately 100 million are parental households with children (either still dependents or grown and independent).
We're talking at least 1-2 million families that could be affected by paternity fraud in the US alone. That has the potential to be massively disruptive if exposed to these 1-2 million families.
We're talking at least 1-2 million families that could be affected by paternity fraud in the US alone. That has the potential to be massively disruptive if exposed to these 1-2 million families.
Further, if those rates are similar across time and roughly evenly distributed among populations, it means that carefully-researched family tree your aunt (or whoever) has spent so much time working on gets unreliable (as far as biological parentage) fast, the more generations you go back. "Look, I'm distantly related to [famous person]!" Well... maybe.
> Further, if those rates are similar across time and roughly evenly distributed among populations
They’re not. Rates of extra paternity events vary a lot by social class[1]. I'd be shocked if that wasn’t true for different ethnic groups.
[1] A Historical-Genetic Reconstruction of Human Extra-Pair Paternity
Highlights
• Combining genetic and genealogical data illuminates our ancestors’ sexual behavior
• Gene-genealogy mismatches imply extra-pair paternity (EPP)
• Historical EPP rates were low overall (∼1%) but varied depending on social context
• EPP rates were highest (∼6%) among urban families with low socioeconomic status
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...
They’re not. Rates of extra paternity events vary a lot by social class[1]. I'd be shocked if that wasn’t true for different ethnic groups.
[1] A Historical-Genetic Reconstruction of Human Extra-Pair Paternity
Highlights
• Combining genetic and genealogical data illuminates our ancestors’ sexual behavior
• Gene-genealogy mismatches imply extra-pair paternity (EPP)
• Historical EPP rates were low overall (∼1%) but varied depending on social context
• EPP rates were highest (∼6%) among urban families with low socioeconomic status
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...
I would strongly expect it to be clustered in specific populations. I'd be very surprised if the rate among HN readers was equal to the rate among the general population.
I promise you HN is a statistical anomaly in a certain direction.
That's a massive number. It means that basically every time you go out to dinner you're in the room with someone who doesn't know that their father isn't their father.
Better to rip off the bandaid, honestly. Rather than old social orders breaking down, I think we'll see some of them strengthened, as the reasons for their institution in the first place get harder to ignore.
100% agree. Society is stronger if we don't build structures as important as families on a foundation of lies.
Hell, I personally believe paternity testing should be damn near mandated and routine for every birth before the father is allowed to sign the birth certificate. It would make every family stronger by removing any possible doubt of fidelity and responsibility.
Hell, I personally believe paternity testing should be damn near mandated and routine for every birth before the father is allowed to sign the birth certificate. It would make every family stronger by removing any possible doubt of fidelity and responsibility.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" and all that.
Any time there's discussions of this kind, though, it feels like a slippery slope to Gattaca. If you think about it, in many ways the urge for your genes to be the ones that make it are one of the only things holding us back from a genetically engineered society and genetic discrimination.
Any time there's discussions of this kind, though, it feels like a slippery slope to Gattaca. If you think about it, in many ways the urge for your genes to be the ones that make it are one of the only things holding us back from a genetically engineered society and genetic discrimination.
If it is truly commoner than most think, wouldnt acceptance of it become common eventually?
Unlikely from an evolutionary perspective. Those males who are psychologically ok with cuckolding will eventually fail to pass on their DNA, whereas those who have a strong aversion to it will be more likely to pass on their DNA.
Being ok with expending your limited time and resources raising unrelated offspring is a self terminating trait.
Being ok with expending your limited time and resources raising unrelated offspring is a self terminating trait.
I disagree. Memes (as in, the culture/personal worldview that can be passed on to descendants) are an equally interested angle of looking at this situation. While the genetics lost this battle, the father's meme is still passed on to the offspring, even if such offspring isn't biological.
I agree to some degree, and expanded as much in a sub comment.
https://wearehostsformemes.com/
https://wearehostsformemes.com/
> Being ok with expending your limited time and resources raising unrelated offspring is a self terminating trait.
I don't know about that. I know at least one family that has six children, two of whom are adopted. That's somewhat rare, but not totally unique.
I don't know about that. I know at least one family that has six children, two of whom are adopted. That's somewhat rare, but not totally unique.
Still applies here in my opinion.
This family you know had 33% fewer biological children than they could have had. That means their DNA will be ever so slightly overwhelmed by families with the same desire and capacity for children who chose to have 100% biological offspring.
Having said that, there certainly is some debate on whether genes are actually greater than memes when it comes to this kind of psychology. It could be that the human brain is general enough to be loaded with this kind of DNA self terminating software (meme) such that it continues for longer than you might otherwise expect, because the unrelated offspring still inherit the memes that motivated the decision to not prioritize your own genetically related offspring.
However, given enough time and generations, there should still emerge a mutant human brain that is more immune to these kinds of memes, and that genetic lineage slowly out competes the one that is more accepting of raising unrelated offspring.
This family you know had 33% fewer biological children than they could have had. That means their DNA will be ever so slightly overwhelmed by families with the same desire and capacity for children who chose to have 100% biological offspring.
Having said that, there certainly is some debate on whether genes are actually greater than memes when it comes to this kind of psychology. It could be that the human brain is general enough to be loaded with this kind of DNA self terminating software (meme) such that it continues for longer than you might otherwise expect, because the unrelated offspring still inherit the memes that motivated the decision to not prioritize your own genetically related offspring.
However, given enough time and generations, there should still emerge a mutant human brain that is more immune to these kinds of memes, and that genetic lineage slowly out competes the one that is more accepting of raising unrelated offspring.
>This family you know had 33% fewer biological children than they could have had.
That's not necessarily true. It's possible - likely, even - that they adopted their last two because there would be issues conceiving a fifth. (Having a C-section limits the number of children a woman can have, for example - as does simply being above a certain age)
That's not necessarily true. It's possible - likely, even - that they adopted their last two because there would be issues conceiving a fifth. (Having a C-section limits the number of children a woman can have, for example - as does simply being above a certain age)
The Neandertal genes in me explain a lot. The Orangutan genes, however, are a puzzler.
I'm not even remotely in the author's situation, but who hasn't sometimes resented some aspect of how they came to be? To which my own response is always "but that's what produced me! If anything had gone differently in even the minutest way (like which of those wiggly things wins the race) I wouldn't be here! Someone else would be. Case closed.
From personal experience, it’s rare that someone in this position resents how they came to be but rather how parental figures in their lives handle this information, purposefully withholding it from the party that had no say in the matter yet means the most to.
I know the odds that I exist are incredibly remote, and so am happy it happened and I'm alive.
The odds that you would exist to perceive yourself existing, however, are 100%.
What's crazy to me is that he was never charged with a crime, just a fee.
Should probably make it illegal.
Should probably make it illegal.
What a sobering and fascinating read. Being led to things like this is why I come to HN every day.
Through at-home DNA testing, I found out at the age of 29 that I was donor conceived. It was shocking to see my DNA relatives list be populated with 12 people to whom I shared about 25% of my DNA with that I had no idea existed just minutes before. It has been a roller coaster ever since with new half siblings popping up frequently and essentially having to onboard them to the family.
My biological father was open to any sort of relationship his donor offspring wanted, having no kids of his own. His parents and extended family also welcomed us very warmly. Unfortunately he actually passed away due to a freak accident before I even spat in the tube, robbing me of any opportunity to meet him. In a way however, I was very lucky. A non trivial number of people reaching out to their newly found bio parent are met with being ignored, blocked, or even cease and desist letters. It makes me legitimately sad for those who have a living bio parent but this person has no interest in any sort of relationship or even trivial contact. Knowing they are out there for the time but the day will come that they will no longer be.
It has been an isolating experience. The parents that donor kids grow up with were often told to never tell their kid, and even when/if their kid finds out, they typically attempt to keep them from telling anyone else. Then to be rejected by someone to whom you share half your DNA with, the half that has become a blank line on the medical questionnaire of your family’s medical history or just the simple question of why you don’t look much like the rest of your family, is just adding insult to physiological injury. The fertility industry peddled lies about anonymity despite knowing exactly how DNA works, that the offspring created will exist with half of the donors DNA in literally every cell of their body. I do not have a lot of sympathy for donors who were unpleasantly surprised that the consequence of donating gametes resulted in offspring and that eventually technology would enable deanonymization.
I’ve personally found a lot of comfort in my brothers and sisters that share the same donor as we are in the same boat. We are all eerily identical in our mannerisms, humor, values, and even choice in partner. But along with this comfort also exists lingering sadness that these people you just recently met, have come to really consider family, and genuinely become fond of, will never have shared growing up together and all the experiences this comes with. There is a podcast called “You look like me” that explores the experiences of Donor Conceived people, that has an episode titled “Memories missed” which very succinctly describes this sadness in those two words. In addition, forging and maintaining relationships as an adult is hard and it takes a lot of work to stay close. To top it all off, the fact that your original family expect you to stay quiet about literally half of yourself, leaves this comfort very bittersweet. It has been a few years since I found out and it really has changed my life and relationship with my parents forever. I have thought about this every day since, and it weighs on me more and more each day.
My biological father was open to any sort of relationship his donor offspring wanted, having no kids of his own. His parents and extended family also welcomed us very warmly. Unfortunately he actually passed away due to a freak accident before I even spat in the tube, robbing me of any opportunity to meet him. In a way however, I was very lucky. A non trivial number of people reaching out to their newly found bio parent are met with being ignored, blocked, or even cease and desist letters. It makes me legitimately sad for those who have a living bio parent but this person has no interest in any sort of relationship or even trivial contact. Knowing they are out there for the time but the day will come that they will no longer be.
It has been an isolating experience. The parents that donor kids grow up with were often told to never tell their kid, and even when/if their kid finds out, they typically attempt to keep them from telling anyone else. Then to be rejected by someone to whom you share half your DNA with, the half that has become a blank line on the medical questionnaire of your family’s medical history or just the simple question of why you don’t look much like the rest of your family, is just adding insult to physiological injury. The fertility industry peddled lies about anonymity despite knowing exactly how DNA works, that the offspring created will exist with half of the donors DNA in literally every cell of their body. I do not have a lot of sympathy for donors who were unpleasantly surprised that the consequence of donating gametes resulted in offspring and that eventually technology would enable deanonymization.
I’ve personally found a lot of comfort in my brothers and sisters that share the same donor as we are in the same boat. We are all eerily identical in our mannerisms, humor, values, and even choice in partner. But along with this comfort also exists lingering sadness that these people you just recently met, have come to really consider family, and genuinely become fond of, will never have shared growing up together and all the experiences this comes with. There is a podcast called “You look like me” that explores the experiences of Donor Conceived people, that has an episode titled “Memories missed” which very succinctly describes this sadness in those two words. In addition, forging and maintaining relationships as an adult is hard and it takes a lot of work to stay close. To top it all off, the fact that your original family expect you to stay quiet about literally half of yourself, leaves this comfort very bittersweet. It has been a few years since I found out and it really has changed my life and relationship with my parents forever. I have thought about this every day since, and it weighs on me more and more each day.
reactspa(8)
Somewhat orthogonal comment. Was reading this book "The coming storm" where the author Michael Lewis talks about chaos theory, and how you could go back to one (small) thing that is at the root of who you are. For example, DJ Patil had dyslexia, and that made him not do well in the school, and so he ended up going the off-beaten track and hacking his school systems etc. Years later, he was hacking into US Weather service's data, and many more incidents later, he became "Head of Data Products and Chief Scientist of LinkedIn" and later worked for Obama.
Parallel here is that one guy's mischievous behavior has such a massive consequence.
Parallel here is that one guy's mischievous behavior has such a massive consequence.
A hundred men donate sperm at some clinic, and then went on with their lives. If it were me, I doubt I would want to pick out one of them and try to pull them into my life. He hasn't done something significant distinguishing him from all the rest which merits this. At least - that's how I feel about it.
And after all, Penina (the mother) herself...
> worried such an arrangement [donation from a friend-of-a-friend] would be emotionally and legally fraught, especially if the man wished to be involved in the baby’s life.