'Children Deserve to Know
Where They Come From'
is a campaign led
by Emma- child behaviour advisor
and family therapist
-
best known
for her work as
'The Child Listener™'
Discussing and exploring the
issues relating
to children born through:
Welcome to The Child Listener's 2011 Campaign
Our Free Chat Forum Here Soon
- The Child Listener™ - A Voice for Kids
Children and Surrogacy
Issues and Information Relating to Raising Children Born Through Surrogacy
Recent Related Article- http://www.prlog.org/11256522-should-single-women-gay-and-lesbian
-couples-use-
altruistic-surrogates-in-queensland.html
PARIS (AFP) — Children born to a surrogate mother or conceived through donated sperm or a donated egg do just as well psychologically as counterparts who are naturally conceived, a study unveiled on Sunday said.
The probe is the widest yet into concerns that the rising numbers of children born through assisted reproduction may suffer lower self-esteem or be treated less positively by parents, siblings and schoolmates.
Scientists led by Polly Casey from the Centre for Family Research at Britain's Cambridge University carried out interviews and psychology tests among 39 surrogacy families, 43 donor insemination families and 46 egg donation families. The children are now seven years old.
For comparison, they made the same investigation among 70 families where the children had been conceived naturally. They also asked the children's teachers, in order to get an independent assessment of the child's wellbeing.
The children were all given a blank "map" with concentric circles, and were told that they were at the centre of it. They were asked to complete the map by placing family members and friends in the circle that represented the emotional closeness of each relationship.
They were also given a picture test, designed as a measure of self-esteem, to assess where they felt they stood among their peers.
"We found that the family types did not differ in the overall quality of the relationship between mothers and their children and fathers and their children," Casey said.
Mothers who had had their child through surrogacy and egg donation tended to be more sensitive to their child's worries and anxieties compared with donor insemination mothers and natural conception mothers, but the difference was minor, she added.
As for the child's view of family relationships, children of all backgrounds placed their mother or father in the closest circle with the same frequency.
There was no significant difference between family types when it came to self-esteem.
An overview of the research, based on data from approximately half of the families, was to be presented on Sunday at the annual conference, taking place in Barcelona, Spain, of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).
In a press release, Casey added that she found a majority of parents of children born through assisted reproduction delayed telling the child about how he or she was conceived.
"At the time of the child's seventh birthday, only 39 percent of egg-donation parents, 29 percent of donor-insemination parents and 89 percent of surrogacy parents had told their children about the nature of their conception."
These figures contrast markedly with what the parents said they would do when they were questioned at the child's first birthday.
At this point, 56 percent of egg-donation parents, 46 percent of donor-insemination parents and 100 percent of surrogacy parents declared they would disclose this information to the child.
The reasons for not informing the children "are numerous and complex," including a desire to protect an infertile father and the fear that a child may feel less love for the non-genetic parent, she said.
With regards to the above, in green, this is why (in part) we have created this web site. Children need to know of their origins early in life- and parents often find this extremely hard to do. We are creating a range of resources and will be delivering workshops and offering online courses- to help would-be parents and also parents who currently have a child who was conceived using assistance- whether this be egg, sperm donation or surrogacy.
(Australia)
Surrogacy debate continues after heated day
A debate on altruistic surrogacy is continuing in the Queensland Parliament today after being adjourned late last night.
Yesterday, a state opposition frontbencher said children would be reduced to the status of pets if same-sex couples were allowed to have children through a surrogate.
MPs debated the divisive issue as Premier Anna Bligh seeks to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy - where a woman has another couple's child for no payment.
The bill would allow the legal parentage of a child born under such an agreement to be transferred from the birth mother to the parents who commissioned the birth.
But the Liberal National Party and church groups are adamant that same-sex couples and single parents must be excluded.
Opposition MP Ray Hopper told State Parliament he was proud to have raised his children within a traditional family unit.
Mr Hopper, the opposition's primary industries and fisheries spokesman, said the proposal to allow same-sex couples to access surrogacy would not be in the best interests of children.
"This government is pushing for surrogacy to be accepted for many reasons, so same-sex couples can feel good to gain popularity and in doing so reducing children to the status of pets," he said.
Mr Hopper accused the Bligh government of not thinking through the implications of the proposed changes, questioning what two mothers with a five-year-old boy would do during an outing if the child needed to visit to the toilet.
"They'll have to let them go to the ladies toilet won't they," he said.
But Sandgate Labor MP Vicki Darling, who served on a parliamentary committee into altruistic surrogacy, said it was beyond the role of politicians to decide who would be suitable parents.
Attorney-General Cameron Dick said the laws included "safeguards to protect everyone's interests, most importantly the rights and interests of the child".
MPs are set for a rare conscience vote on the issue.
The Queensland Association for Healthy Communities, which promotes the health and wellbeing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, had earlier called on politicians to be "respectful" in the debate.
The association's spokesman, Paul Martin, said same-sex couples should not be excluded from surrogacy rights.
"The only test of parenthood should be whether a loving, nurturing and safe environment can be provided for the child, not the gender of the parents," he said in a statement.
The opposition says the surrogacy debate sparked by the government was always framed around men and women struggling to conceive.
It supports the decriminalisation push, but is adamant the move should not benefit same-sex couples and single parents.
Deputy Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg told ABC Radio the government was trying to impose its "loopy left-wing ideals" on the broader community and said there was no community call for it.
Church and family groups argued the bill would threaten the traditional family model and normalise same-sex parenting.
The Australian Christian Lobby said altruistic surrogacy should be a last resort for infertile married couples, not a solution for gay and lesbian couples who want kids.
"The Bligh government knocked back same-sex adoption, but is now going against the logic in that decision by creating situations where a surrogate child could end up with two mummies or two daddies or even just one parent - right from birth," the lobby said in a statement yesterday.
Queensland is the only Australian state in which altruistic surrogacy is a criminal offence, punishable by a $10,000 fine or three years' imprisonment.
Commercial surrogacy will remain illegal under the bill.
AAP, with Daniel Hurst
Source
Note from Emma- Please see articles relating to decriminalising altruistic surrogacy- back in 2208.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/surrogacy-to-be-decriminalised/story-e6freoof-1111117697054
http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=63458
Does it really take this long to get out of the dark ages - and allow kind, wonderful women to help those who need assistance by carrying their child?
A note from Emma
Through this site I focus on the rights and needs of children born through surrogacy, egg
or sperm donation- or who have been adopted- and how we can support their families.
It is difficult not to be drawn into the current debate within Australia regarding whether altruistic surrogacy should be allowed, legally, within Queensland- and whether it
should be accessible to single women, gay and lesbian couples. It is also difficult for many
to hear of people making demeaning and prejudicial comments - about something they
appear to know little about. For example, a recent comment from a state opposition frontbencher stated
"children would be reduced to the status of pets if same-sex couples were allowed to have children through a surrogate".
How can someone in this position be allowed to make such comments? I am saddened by the realisation that so many within government have yet to realise the power of acceptance, love, compassion- and equality for all. It reminds me of when 20th century legislations were passed to segregate and protect Aboriginals. This involved restrictions on where they could live and work and families being broken up. Again, people in power were able to make decisions that affect people's lives. They are not psychologists- nor are they knowledgeable about the research that is available- and as such not qualified to make comments regarding the best interests of the child- or families. Indeed who is really? If the child is the focus- then we should be looking at each individual case. Children need love, consistency- and the opportunity to be who is raised to reach their potential. This can happen in a range of family set ups- and we should be careful about making broad sweeping comments and judgments. This doesn't just happen in two parent straight families. And often doesn't.
There is no longer a ''traditional family model'- go into any classroom and find out which children are being raised by this 'model'. And of those children- are all being raised in the optimum environment? Of course not. Instead of passing judgment- and arguing about something they know nothing about- they should focus on their own families and behaviour - and in creating a society that is based on love and compassion for all fellow human beings. Whether they be straight, gay, black, white, able bodied......the list would go on and on. Why? Because that is the very nature of our human world.
People who are emotionally and financially stable should be able to be parents- regardless of their sexuality or marital status. Many straight married couples should not- in my opinion- have been allowed to have children in the first place. We do not assess married couples before allowing them to have children- why are we trying to do this with others? The ability of single women, lesbian and infertile couples to be good parents is not defined simply because they are part of this group of human beings.
Technology - and increased knowledge - have allowed people to overcome difficulties and to improve the quality of their lives. We wear glasses if short sighted, replace a kidney when there is failure, take medication when ill.....If we were to take the standpoint that 'nature did not intend single women, lesbian and infertile couples to have children' then we would also need to live by the rule that whatever happens to us is 'God's will' - or 'nature's will. We would not anything to change what happens to us- or what we were born with 'naturally'. If you choose to go against nature- whether it is changing your hair colour, or having heart surgery- you cannot then judge others who also decide not to accept 'What nature- or God- chose for them.' Many people choose to be parents- and need assistance to do so.
And on that note I would like to get back to a focus on our children. Children being brought into the world in all manner of ways. Children need to know where they come from genetically. Parent/s raising them need support; learning how to build on their own natural empathy and understanding of what their individual children want and need- taking into account the fact that they do not know what is it like to be that child.
To make the focus whether single women, lesbian or infertile couples should be allowed
to have children in the first place- is an arrogant and ignorant discussion on a parallel with a discussion about whether or not Aboriginal deserve to be recognised as Australian citizens.
The Child Listener™- A Voice for Kids
http://www.prlog.org/11256522-should-single-women-gay-and-lesbian-couples-use-altruistic-surrogates-in-queensland.html
Also see
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/surrogacy-reforms-should-not-exclude-gay-couples-group-20100210-nquc.html
Taken from article
"The only test of parenthood should be whether a loving, nurturing and safe environment can be provided for the child, not the gender of the parents," the association's general manager Paul Martin said in a statement on Wednesday.
"Numerous studies from Australia and around the world show that children raised by same-sex couples develop equally as well as those raised by opposite sex couples.
"We call on all members of parliament to be respectful in the debate today."