From: jws@hp835.mitek.com (Jeanetha Wemken)
Subject: Re: Family Values?
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:22:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.205420.26388@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> troy@cbnewsh.cb.att.com ( ) writes:
>In article <Brtny8.Jv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>
>>If you'll note, I referred to "biological ties". You were the one who
>>immediately made the leap to family ties.  You see, we still think of
>>biology as family.  But the very technology of artificial insemination
>>by donor (AID) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) simultaneously do two
>>things: they relegate the status of biological father to that of 
>>unnamed drone and they inform women that the highest good is "natural"
>>children.  
>>
>>Why are adopted children less "real" than "natural" children?  Are they
>>somehow less human than "real" children?  We talk of children like we 
>>talk of household objects.  "Children of their own" "can't afford a 
>>child (couch, vacation, etc.)".  Saving up for IVF so that we can buy
>>a child of our very own.  Or we can rent space in someone else's womb
>>and have them manufacture the child for us.  Maybe using an egg we 
>>bought in Florida, and that sperm that was on sale in Houston.  
>>I exaggerate, but only by today's standards.  In ten or twenty years,
>>this could be a real conversation, seriously discussed.  
>>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>I can't let this pass.  As a person who experienced infertility and
>who now has in your terms "a child of my own," "a natural child," "a
>real child" I object to the suggestion that use of *any* infertility
>technique from clomid through AID, IVF, GIFT, and ZIFT type treatments
>suggests that "natural" children are somehow less desirable than children
>that are adopted or members of blended families.
>
>Adoption in the US today is incredibly expensive and difficult.  Adoption
>of healthy infants is more expensive.  And save the lecture on how many
>non-white, special needs, older children are available also.  Most states
>restrict adoption of children within race, older children are usually
>available only with incredible emotional and physical difficulties from
>their birth families and many of us are not prepared financially or
>emotionally to deal with extensive handicaps.  Private adoption of an
>infant can run from $10,000 to $25,000, if you can find one.  In my state,
>the waiting period for the state agency for a "healthy, white, child under
>the age of eight" after the roughly six months to a year to get approval
>as a prospective adoptive parent is ten years.  And the age difference
>between the parent and child may be no more than 40 years.  Guess what?
>We'd never be able to adopt a child under the age of seven through them if
>these rules hold.
>
>The extensive use of technology to achieve pregnancy for many of us is
>a reaction to these facts, not simply a knee jerk "I want a child of my
>*own*."  We pursued both adoption and technology.  Technology paid off
>first.
>
>Troy Adams

Troy,

Thank you for your response.  I also was overwhelmmed by the accusations
implied in S. Kellmeyer post.  

I to am a mother of an IVF (frozen embryo) success.  I am presently trying
for another.  Believe me because of our ages and my divorce history no
adoption agency would look at us for canidates for adoptive parents.  I
was very sad to have the doors slammed shut that left us either "private"
adoption or the medical intervention.  Both costs lots of money.  At the
time our insurance helped with the infertility treatment.  I would love
the oportunity to have another child, either natural or adopted to 
complete our family.  

I think your response was well stated and I appreciate that you posted
for those of us that are fighting the battle of infertility.

Jeanetha Wemken 
jws@hp835.oc.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids