A scruffy man, tanned and good-looking, dressed in an old leather jacket and snug jeans, is on a motorcycle zipping through a neighborhood near you. He’s a restaurateur into “local” everything, a man whose produce vendor is one among many sexy women who want to hook up with him. He was also, years ago, a sperm donor who, unbeknownst to him, achieved reproductive success.
Meet Paul, who is about to encounter the California lesbian couple who each became pregnant with his sperm. In a moving, at times ambivalent and, despite its attempts at realism, largely fantastical exploration, the new hit movie The Kids are All Right probes the emotional fall out after eighteen-year-old Joni makes a phone call that results in a first-ever meeting between the two teenagers, their biological father (played by Mark Ruffalo), and the mothers (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore) who raised them.
The movie is rich on particulars and complexity; there are no stock characters here. The lesbian mothers are sympathetic, funny, and attractive, but have their faults. The daughter is a classic overachiever who wants to protect her mothers. The fifteen-year-old son is a jock with feelings, at ease in a world of women but not one of them. If you came looking for a heavy-handed defense of gay marriage or a commercial for gay families, all happy-go-lucky behind their white picket fences, you won’t find it here.
What you will find is a sometimes searing exploration of the raw emotions at stake when women who never intended for their children to have a father suddenly find a father in their lives. “The plan was to limit the involvement,” says one, desperately. “He’s their biological father and all that crap,” says the other. “And it’s really sh---. Like we’re not enough or something.”
The film also exposes the task that confronts children when they meet their sperm donor father, for the first time, once their childhood is largely over. On their way to meet Paul, protective Joni warns Laser, her brother, “I just don’t want you to have big expectations.” Later, Laser asks Paul, “How much did you get paid?” Paul admits, “I got paid 60 dollars a pop.” Laser flinches, and so do we, at a child’s bald confrontation with the cold facts of his commercial conception.
Despite the attempts at realism, the movie is a fantasy. To begin with in real life, these kids would not have found it so easy to find their sperm donor father. And it’s equally unlikely that he would resemble the easy-going, available Paul.
The movie implies that the children have an identity release donor, a concept pioneered by the lesbian-friendly Sperm Bank of California in the 1980s. The policy allows children to learn the identity of their sperm donor when they turn eighteen. Once Joni makes the phone call, in the blink of an eye Joni, Laser, and Paul are sitting at an outdoor table, bathed in sunlight, playing get-to-know-you.
For most donor conceived persons, this is the stuff that dreams are made of. Throughout its long history (the first recorded case of donor insemination in America took place in Philadelphia, in 1884), sperm donation has nearly always been an anonymous transaction. Male infertility was a source of shame, and going outside the bonds of marriage to reproduce with the aid of modern medicine was thought best kept a secret for the sake of everyone involved.
Even today, with greater societal openness about sexual matters, still most donor offspring have not even been told the truth by their parents about how they were conceived, and the law continues to allow anonymous donations of sperm and egg. If young people do find out they were conceived through sperm donation, they have almost no hope of finding their biological father.
While lesbian couples and single women who use sperm donation have tended to be more open about how the children were conceived (the obvious lack of a father does raise the question), they often use anonymous sperm donors, too. Some lesbian women fear that a non-anonymous donor might someday challenge them for custody of their children. Others have other reasons, recently highlighted in a publication by COLAGE, a support and advocacy organization for children of gay and lesbian parents and their families.
One lesbian mother says she and her partner chose an anonymous sperm donor because “we didn’t want to triangulate our parenting or form a life-long negotiated relationship with anyone else but ourselves.” Another says she had a “fear that our child [would] at some point wish for a father and embrace a relationship with the donor seeking this, in ways that harm[ed] our child or displace[d] our parenting relationship.” Another says, “we wanted [our children] to have 2 parents who were moms only.”
Granted, Joni and Laser have an identity release donor. But in these cases, the sperm banks only promise to provide their most recent contact information for the donor to the child who has reached age eighteen. It’s up to the sperm donor to keep his contact information updated. If you do locate him, he probably won’t live a short motorcycle ride away, as Paul does. He could live in another part of the country, or another part of the world. He probably now has a family of his own (in the movie, Paul does not) and his wife might not be thrilled about him meeting his other children. Or he could be dead.
The film also implies that Joni and Paul are the only children resulting from Paul’s donations. The fantasy depends on his being able to give them his undivided attention (and so it is also useful that Paul is single). In the United States, there are no limits to how many children can be conceived with one donor’s sperm. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine offers merely a professional recommendation that one donor father no more than 25 children.
If a man donates at more than one clinic, there is no way to know how many children he has. Some donors have discovered they have dozens of children. One donor in the United Kingdom has more than sixty. If other children conceived with Paul’s sperm start coming forward, how much of Paul will there be to go around?
But for the moment, let’s accept the premise of the movie. The kids have found their sperm donor biological father. Now what? Ambiguity reigns, and it’s up to the children to make sense of it all.
The COLAGE guide is authored by a young man who was himself conceived through sperm donation and raised by lesbian mothers. Of the sperm donor, he says, “we must decide what this person means to us.” He notes the “challenging task of defining the relationship with your known donor.” He reassures the reader, “It is completely normal and okay to speak up about the kind of relationship you want with your donor.”
When the institution of something called fatherhood falls apart, this is what happens. We leave children to define the relationship of themselves to their fathers. Children must decide what this person “means” to them. They should “speak up.”
Some might be able to do this. But what about the others? What about the ones who are not gifted with emotional intelligence—the ones who aren’t skilled at negotiating ambivalence and speaking up about their own needs in the face of their parents’ tender feelings?
And what about those whose sperm donors have no interest in being fathers? In the COLAGE guide, one young woman says, “My donor doesn’t seem to be particularly into the whole father thing with me, and it caused me quite a bit of pain trying to get him to be.” Another says: “I grew up having certain expectation of what roles my [sperm donor] . . . would play in my life and when [he] didn’t fulfill those expectations, I was hurt.”
A recent study of donor-conceived adults, reported in My Daddy’s Name is Donor, found that, overall, donor offspring are hurting more, more confused, and more isolated from their families compared to those who are adopted or raised by their biological parents. Two-thirds say, “My sperm donor is half of who I am,” even though few know who that donor is. They are significantly more likely than other children to be struggling with problems like substance abuse, delinquency, and depression.
In The Kids are All Right, the actors benefit from a script. In real life, there is no script for these kids. It’s up to them to figure everything out and make the best of it. The person whom a child rightly considers her father is a man who might well believe—probably does believe—that he is just a “donor.” That is not—at all—all right.
Elizabeth Marquardt, the director of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values, is co-investigator of the ground-breaking My Daddy’s Name is Donor, which reports a large study of adults conceived through sperm donation. The report is available at FamilyScholars.org, where she also blogs.
Comments:
I don't think it makes sense to encourage children to think of donors or surrogates as fathers and mothers. One benefit of the tradition of extended families is that there are a lot of ways to be a supporter of a child without being a parent. It makes more sense to integrate these relations as generic 'aunties' than try to instantly create a deeper connection.
--Leah @ Unequally Yoked
This doesn't mean that it can't turn out all right sometimes. Meeting the psychic and spiritual needs of children isn't the primay concern in many heterosexual households, either. Very few of us have the blessing of being quite sure that our conception was the result of a man and woman loving each other so much that they wanted to live together forever and make a baby to be part of each of them and yet a brand-new thing. Still, knowing undeniably that it was NOT that way must be a very heavy lifelong burden to bear.
I would add this, artificial insemination with non-spousal donor sperm and surrogate motherhood are intrinsically evil and should be illegal, as they both encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of the donors (and recipients, I suppose, as well), do irreparable harm to the children produced, and undermine the foundations of traditional marriage.
I'll assume against all obvious appearances that you aren't being silly. No one is suggesting that this child should not exist, anymore than anyone who opposes rape necessarily implies that children produced thereby should not exist. The evil of a particular method of procreating does not extend to the procreated person. Christians are rightfully opposed to the former while expressing sorrow, grief, and compassion to the latter.
I do not necessarily agree that this is the most functional formula for a family, nor do I know whether it is right or not, but these children that are produced are PEOPLE. Their parents are PEOPLE. Okay, so the donor was just trying to make some money but they are also PEOPLE. God knows the technological advances of today's society...these children were not created of our own accord nor were they an accident. How they came about or how they are being raised does not warrant us pointing fingers or calling people "jerks". I have two friends who are the result of sperm donors...one of them sought out the donor. I do not think this was a healthy option for her at all. It ended in heart ache for obvious reasons, but do I think it is wrong that she should be created? NO. You all need to think about these things before you write them. People are people, no matter how they came to be or how they were raised. Good article, but insensitive and ridiculous comments. Don't be so arrogant...this is why the world refuses to listen to Christianity-we are so sure we are right we forget that those we believe to be wrong are just as loved and intended to exist by God as we are.
Of course you are right. I made a careless joke. I have noticed in others that off-hand jokes don't work in comment sections. Humor needs to be so much more subtle in this thin medium. Why did I think I was not susceptible to the laws of comment humor? Well, I am pretty sure I am immune to the problems I see in others. Until someone is kind enough to point things out to me, firmly but without malice (as you have done). Consider me chastened.
Truth existed before it was Revealed. The greatest act of love in history was Jesus' death on the cross. We are foolish to think we know better than our fathers. Perhaps the problem is we increasingly don't know our fathers—how can we feel loyalty to the wisdom of a sperm donor, or a tattooed one-night stander? And if we don't know our fathers, how can we be expected to care for the wisdom of their fathers? Of our ancestors? Were our ancestors idiots? Are we suddenly inspired?
I suggest folds take a look at the basis for the teachings of the Magisterium. It is the one reliable anchor in an ever-changing world (where that Liar and murderer from the Beginning holds terrible sway). See for example: http://www.ccgaction.org/family/protectmarriage/principles/CatholicSexualEthics
Godspeed,
Well, yes, lots of our ancestors were idiots. Most of them were racists or fanatics, such as those who brought us the Inquisition or persecuted witches or burned people at the stake. I'd say that we have progressed a little. Unfortunately, we have not come far enough.
Perhaps you have a particularly troubled relationship with your past, but I think it is safe to say (and I am certainly presenting no less evidence for my claim than you did), that, no, most of our ancestors were not racists or fanatics.
What word to choose. As a rule the man who donates sperm is not thinking about what he is doing. He does his disgusting thing (think about it), receives a small check and moves on. He is not thinkint about the willful production of fatherless children and all the potential problems inherent in that sort of situation, nor is he at all willing to take any responsibility for them.
Likewise are men who "sleep around" and precipitate the oh so common single mom situation equally thoughtless. I don't mind using the word "jerk" to describe their behavior. If and when they come to their senses they often use that word to describe themselves, at least in my experience. It's a word often used by the now responsibility-saddled female.
The casual sperm donor is really not too different. So I would soften Drew's vocabulary only by one degree. A person may not called a jerk, but men are certainly capable of acting like jerks.
Thus, it is appropriate to say the sperm donor acts like a jerk when he so thoughtlessly particpates in the creation of a fatherless child.
Language can and should provoke, at least at times.
Would you care to say who did that study? As you MUST know, psychological studies often produce different findings based on researchers’ bias or interpretation. I have seen studies that show kids raised by gay parents are as psychologically as healthy as other kids and have LESS drug addiction or involvement in criminal activities. The only difference between children of gay vs straight parents was found to be in their ATTITUDE toward homosexuality. Also children of gay parents have not been shown to be more homosexual than the general population, but they are more tolerant of it. I have also seen studies that say that the kids with the most severe psychological problems come from fundamentalist Christian families. [I cant site them-I’m not a researcher or a journalist, but I have seen them. A PROFESSIONAL journalist should have an obligation to cite his/her sources]
2)Re:” The person whom a child rightly considers her father is a man who might well believe—probably does believe—that he is just a “donor.” That is not—at all—all right.” ‘
‘Right’ is opinion, not fact. He may well just be a donor, as might be a kidney or blood donor. A parent is a person who parents. That is not something that occurs on the cellular level.
[BTW-I am straight and have 3 straight children.]
Just for one example: Lisa Miller, the mother in the disputed custody case with her former lesbian partner, had a history of mental instability, that probably would have disqualified her from adopting. Yet she was allowed to use a stranger's sperm, and have access to all the medical apparatus to create a child, simply because she could pay for it.
There is something wrong with that.
Not that I consider ART to be morally good. Many children are conceived this way and die in the lab before the few strong ones get a chance to be transfered into a womb and in this situation a great wrong is done to those who are never transfered and thus never get any sort of shot at life.
The goal of loving and raising children is a good and admirable one. I repeat, the desire to birth and love their children is admirable, but the means are barbaric. The Children born in this way are people--but so were all their frozen or dead siblings.
This makes ART a morally negative means to achieve an admirable goal.
That is exactly the core problem with the modern world - the idea that there is no "truth" about right or wrong, only competing opinions. Notably, this carries implicit in its subtext the idea that it is wrong to impose one's opinions on others - which is itself a claim of right that the speaker is attempting to impose on the listener.
In light of this, I find it far more productive to view the issue this way:
1) There are real truths about right and wrong
2) While I may feel that there is strong enough evidence to convince me that a given principle is true, others will weight the evidence differently and come to conflicting conclusions
3) All human interaction necessarily involves advocating for and attempting to propagate one's own values and views of right
For example, take the issue at hand - that of ART. Some, like myself, believe passionately that technology that disconnects the decision to create a child from the decision to parent is gravely wrong (among other objections to ART), and therefore we fight to prevent it. Others believe passionately that interfering with a person's "right" to have a child whether or not they are biologically able is gravely wrong, and therefore they fight to prevent it. It would be hypocritical for *either* side to say "Stop imposing your morality on me!" Both sides are trying to do exactly that! Sometimes the pro-ART side may retort, "But I don't try to affect your private life, while you intrude on the most intimate decisions of people's lives" - yet there is still a moral principle implicit in that retort (that private acts are entitled to a greater degree of deference and protection than public ones, or that a person has no right to compel others in matters that don't directly affect that person) which their opponents generally don't concede applies in all circumstances... But the pro-ART advocate is attempting to impose it as a universal norm (just as their opponents are trying to do with the moral principle of the nuclear family).
I mention this not to argue about whether ART is right or wrong - I leave that to others, though I have openly disclosed my own position - but to highlight what I said above: that *everyone,* *everywhere* is trying to promote their own concepts of morality at the expense of competing views. Even those who say "You do what you want, and I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me" are promoting that view at the expense of the competing view that says "What you do is my business" as well as the one that says "I'll do what I want even if it does affect you". Once we realize this, then we can stop pointlessly decrying "moral tyranny" and start debating the actual pros and cons of the views themselves, and seeking for the real truth of the matter - which does exist, even if it's difficult (or even impossible) to know with absolute certainty.
The world isn't the marketplace of ideas, it's the battlefield of ideas, and paradoxically, as long as we try to delude ourselves into thinking the battle is one big group hug, it will continue to be senseless, and pointless, and bloody. Once we open our eyes, admit that we are *all* battling for our own best assessment of the truth, and start looking at our fellow combatants not as disruptive boors screwing up this imaginary group hug, but as fighters no less honorable than ourselves, with no fewer good intentions than ourselves - only then can we draw up rules of engagement, and perhaps even forge truces and peace treaties, and start working towards peaceful collaboration.
Ancestry is extremely important to people. At some period of life, you look to find who your ancestors were, what they looked like (do they look like me???) and essentially who YOU are. When I look at my Granddaughter I see my family in her and it's a wonderful thing. Why would anyone want to deliberately take that away from a child?
Children deserve a Mother and a Father whenever possible. It's nature that rules here and it has worked for several thousand years. Just because you CAN doesnt mean you should.


